The Forensics Files ©
October
,-.(/!0.12342(/35.2(
The PFD File
Space
,-.(6/7(/35.(
(
Resolved:
Private sector investment in human space exploration
is preferable to public sector investment.
!"#$%&'()*++(
1
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Table of Contents
Topic Overview
3
Definitions
5
Pro Cases
10
Con Cases
14
Pro Extensions
18
Con Extensions
28
Pro Blocks
37
Con Blocks
41
Preflows
45
2
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Topic Overview
Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is
preferable to public sector investment.
This resolution comes at a time when private sector investment in space
exploration has been at its greatest and when public sector investment is probably at its
lowest. In the United States, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) is the primary public sector agency that is designated for public, or
governmental, space exploration. NASA is a federal administrative agency like the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And like all other federal administrative
agencies, NASA accomplishes several of its objectives because it obtains money from the
federal government. The federal government gets its money through market activities,
such as but also through federal taxation, for example, on income taxes of its citizens.
Thus, the public sector investment in the United States comes from the resources of the
federal government.
An alternative to public sector investment is private sector investment. This is
investment that is done by non-governmental actors, such as private companies, private
individuals, and groups of private individuals. The most important aspect of the private
sector, for purposes of this resolution, is that it is non-governmental. The private sector
gets its resources, primarily, from markets in the private sector.
However, the private sector also gets money from the government in the form of
grants, subsidies (arguably), and through contracting with the government to complete
projects for the government. The fact that private companies receive funding from the
government can complicate things for the purposes of this resolution. It forces you to ask
the question: What is private investment? Is private investment really public investment
because the government provides resources to private companies? Conversely, is public
investment really private investment because the government gets many of its resources
from the private sector? One bright-line approach may be to delineate the two sectors
based on who is actually spending the money on directly space exploration. For example,
if the US is giving money to NASA for exploration, this could be considered public
sector investment. And on the other side, if it is private companies that are spending
money on space exploration, this could be considered private sector investment.
As with most (but as you probably have experienced, not all) topics, there seems
to be substantial ground for both sides to argue the superiority of one sector’s investment.
Predictably, there will be arguments about public vs. private investment generally. The
libertarian position is that everything should be privatized, and thus libertarian arguments
would support private investment and condemn public investment. These arguments
generally come in the form of private rights. For example, the government is wrong to
take money away from private individuals because those people might have objections to
spending it on space exploration and would not do so if the choice of how to spend the
3
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
money was up to them. These arguments will also encompass general economic theory,
such as the economic inefficiencies of the government.
On the flip side will be socialism-types of arguments in support of public sector
investment. Such arguments might include that the private sector is untrustworthy
because of profit motives and lack of security measures. Another argument might be that
space exploration has always been thought of as for the purpose of promoting the welfare
of humanity generally rather than private individuals. In fact, many, if not most,
countries have signed a treaty recognizing this goal. Other arguments in support of
public investment are that NASA has more institutional experience than any private firm.
NASA has been exploring space for decades whereas most private firms are brand new.
The cards in this File explore these arguments and more. TFF wishes you the best
of luck in October!
4
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Definitions
Private
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Secluded from the sight, presence, or intrusion of others
Designed or intended for one's exclusive use
Of or confined to the individual; personal
Undertaken on an individual basis
Of, relating to, or receiving special hospital services and privileges
Not available for public use, control, or participation
Belonging to a particular person or persons, as opposed to the public or
the government
8.
Of, relating to, or derived from nongovernment sources
9.
Conducted and supported primarily by individuals or groups not affiliated
with governmental agencies or corporations
10.
Enrolled in or attending a private school
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Private
1.
2.
used only by a particular person or group, or available only to them
controlled or owned by individual people or companies, rather than by the
government
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Sector
1.
A division of a defensive position for which one military unit is
responsible.
2.
A part or division, as of a city or a national economy
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Sector
1.
a part of a country’s economic or business activity
2.
a group that is part of a larger group
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Private Sector
1.
all the businesses, industries, and services that are not owned or managed
by the government
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
5
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Private Sector
1.
businesses and industries that are not owned or controlled by the
government
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Private Sector
1.
the area of the nation's economy under private rather than governmental
control.
Source: Random House Dictionary 2011
Investment
1.
2.
3.
The act of investing.
An amount invested.
Property or another possession acquired for future financial return or
benefit.
4.
A commitment, as of time or support.
5.
A military siege.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Investment
1.
The money used in a way that may earn you more money, for example
money used for buying property or stock in a company
2.
an amount of money that is invested
3.
the process of spending money in order to improve something or make it
more successful
4.
something that you are willing to spend money on now because it will
give you benefits in the future
5.
the amount of time, energy, or emotion needed in order to make something
successful
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Human
1.
2.
3.
4.
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
A person
Of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character
regarded as distinguishing humans from other animals
6
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
5.
Subject to or indicative of the weaknesses, imperfections, and fragility
associated with humans
6.
Having the form of a human
7.
Made up of humans
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Human
1.
of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2.
consisting of humans
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011
Human
1.
of or typical of people
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Space
1.
The expanse in which the solar system, stars, and galaxies exist; the
universe.
2.
The region of this expanse beyond Earth's atmosphere.
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Space
1.
the whole of the universe outside the Earth’s atmosphere.
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Space
1.
2.
an empty area which is available to be used
that which is around everything that exists and which is continuous in all
directions
3.
land, especially in a town, which has no buildings on it
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Exploration
1.
The act or an instance of exploring
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
7
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Exploration
1.
a trip to a place to learn about it or to search for something valuable such
as oil
2.
a thorough examination or discussion of a subject, idea, etc.
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Exploration
1.
the act or an instance of exploring
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011
Exploration
1.
when you search and find out about something
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Preferable
1.
better or more suitable
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Preferable
1.
More desirable or worthy than another; preferred
Source: American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 2011
Preferable
1.
having greater value or desirability
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2011
Preferable
1.
more appropriate or useful than something else
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Public
1. of, concerning, or available to the people as a whole.
8
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
2. of or involved in the affairs of the community, especially in government or
entertainment.
3. done, perceived, or existing in open view.
4. of or provided by the state rather than an independent, commercial company.
Source: Compact Oxford English Dictionary 2011
Public Sector
1.
the industries and services, for example schools, that are supported by tax
money and controlled by the government of a country or an area
Source: MacMillan Dictionary 2011
Public Sector
1.
businesses and industries that are owned or controlled by the government
Source: Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 2011
Public Sector
1.
the area of the nation's affairs under governmental rather than private
control.
Source: Source: Random House Dictionary 2011
9
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Cases
PRO CASE #1
[Economy — 1 of 2]
Because private sector investment in human space exploration provides for the most
economical way to promote space exploration, we believe the following resolution is
true: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to
public sector investment. The thesis of our case is that human space exploration is a
good goal to have and that whichever sector can most economically promote space
exploration should be the sector whose investment is more preferable. As our following
contentions show, the private sector is the more efficient sector.
Our first contention is that private commercial space launch will boost economic
competition, open up new jobs, and reduce the cost of human space exploration.
William Harwood, writes in an article entitled “Obama ends moon program, endorses
private spaceflight,” for CNet News on February 1, 20101:
"The budget funds NASA to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to
the International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk of relying solely on
foreign crew transports for years to come," the budget summary stated. "A strengthened
U.S. commercial space launch industry will bring needed competition, act as a catalyst
for the development of other new businesses capitalizing on affordable access to space,
help create thousands of new jobs, and help reduce the cost of human access to space."
Our second contention is that private investment is better because it budgets its
resources better. Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, writes in
an article, “Exploration initiatives from the private sector,” from the The Space Review,
on August 29, 20112:
The human exploration program is rudderless, and the robotic exploration program is
foundering due to over-budgeted, unaffordable mission plans. The plans for the next set
of Mars missions after MSL keeps getting whittled down by budget cutters and we are
not at all sure of what missions may fly, if any, in the second half of the current decade.
The proposal for a Red Dragon (the SpaceX capsule to Mars) is a shot in the arm and
ought to stimulate some new thinking for the future of Mars exploration. Maybe it can be
a private-public partnership like those being planned for post-shuttle US Earth orbit
transportation, and maybe the robots really can pave the road for humans.
1
2
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
10
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
PRO CASE #1
[Economy — 2 of 2]
Our third and final contention is that the private sector is a viable industry. Private
companies are developing ideas for space exploration. Lou Friedman continues:
Elon Musk, who entered the space business driven by a personal goal of sending humans
to Mars, has made the bold suggestion that his Dragon capsule can be a Mars lander for
both humans and their robotic precursors. It’s bold: NASA has never recognized that
human and robotic space exploration are a pair of eyes providing the same space vision.
It’s bold also because it proposes that a design optimized for Earth entry can also work at
Mars. Usually trying to meet two sets of diverse mission requirements with one system
doesn’t work out. But the suggestion here is that the Mars lander will not be driven by
such requirements but by whatever capabilities it may offer for the robotic precursor. The
precursor will be an explicit pathfinder for humans.
Thus, the private sector is a viable sector that can use its resources more efficiently than
the public sector. The most efficient sector will promote the most space exploration at
the lowest cost to society. For those reasons, the resolution is true that private sector
investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment. We
thank you for your time and attention. (And we are now ready for cross-fire.)
11
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
PRO CASE #2
[NASA Bad — 1 of 2]
Public sector investment has primarily meant that public funds will be sent to NASA for
its waste. In the United States, NASA is the federal agency designed to promote space
exploration. Yet, in the several decades since humans went to the moon, NASA has
failed to increase US accomplishments. But we still continue to poor millions of dollars
into the agency. Why do we keep doing this? The Con side will fail to provide sufficient
explanation for you to vote for them. Instead, the thesis of our case is that NASA has
failed miserably and will inevitably fail. This is because investment should not be tied to
the public sector. The resolution assumes that investment in space exploration is good:
the only question is which sector is a better investor? We believe that it is the private
sector. Thus the following resolution is true: Resolved: Private sector investment in
human space exploration is preferable to public sector investment.
Our first contention is that NASA has had several missions that have been paid for,
but failed. Robert Zimmerman, writes in an article, “Say no to NASA, yes to private
companies,” for USA Today, on September 23, 20043:
Each failure makes a strong case for turning to private enterprise, as we did so
successfully in the 1960s and with less success in the 1990s. • The National Aerospace
Plane was proposed by President Reagan in 1986 during his State of the Union address.
This cutting-edge technology, Reagan proclaimed, would "by the end of the decade take
off from Dulles Airport, accelerate up to 25 times the speed of sound, attaining low-Earth
orbit, or fly to Tokyo within two hours." After spending $1.7 billion, and building
nothing, the program was canceled in 1992. • The X-33 was announced with much
fanfare by Vice President Al Gore on July 4, 1996. The program was going to produce a
single-stage-to-orbit reusable spacecraft. "This is the craft that can carry America's
dreams aloft and launch our nation into a sparkling new century," Gore enthused. After
five years and $1.2 billion, the X-33 was canceled when cracks were found in the
spacecraft's experimental fuel tanks. • During the same years as the X-33, NASA
pursued the X-34, a smaller two-stage reusable rocket launched from a belly of a L-1011
jet, and the X-38, a reusable lifeboat for the International Space Station. After four years,
more than $1 billion but little hardware production, both were scrubbed. • In 2000, even
as the previous projects were being put to the torch, NASA came up with another
program, the Space Launch Initiative. For two years, the agency spent $800 million
drawing blueprints for a plethora of proposed shuttle replacements. Nothing was built. In
2002, the Space Launch Initiative was scrapped like the rest.’
3
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmerman-edit_x.htm
12
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
PRO CASE #2
[NASA Bad — 2 of 2]
Our second contention is that the public sector is risk averse because it is tied to
public sentiments. Thus, private investment is better because only the companies
bear the costs of their failures. Bart Leahy, writes for National Space Society, and in
an article called “Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate, on
May 12, 2006, he argues4:
Stephenson said that NASA is risk-averse because the voting public does not want to lose
another astronaut, and that the risk-averse nature of the program is the biggest stumbling
block to inspiring an environment of development or inspiration. Even Bill Nye the
Science Guy remarked that "It's easy to bust NASA's chops."
Finally, Public investment trades off with other resources needed for the public.
The European Space Agency reports in an executive summary of its research in 20055:
One major implication of this directive is that, if space exploration costs overrun the
agency's dedicated budget, NASA must fill the gap by reducing the financial resources
dedicated to its other programmes. Another implication is that the exploration programme
should confirm US independent human access to space.
For theses reasons the resolution is true. We thank you for your time and attention. (And
we are ready for crossfire.)
4
http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-private-investment-public-fundingdebate.html
5
The Future of European Space Exploration TOWARDS A EUROPEAN LONG-TERM
STRATEGY, Executive Report 2005
13
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Cases
CON CASE #1
[NASA is Better —1 of 2]
Because NASA has more promise than any individual company in the private sector, the
following resolution is false: Resolved: Private sector investment in human space
exploration is preferable to public sector investment. The thesis of our case is that
NASA, which is part of the public sector because it is a federal administrative agency, is
a better place to invest money in space exploration than in the private sector.
Our first contention is that NASA is better for deep space exploration, it is only
handing off low-orbit development to private firms. Larry Dignan, writes in an article
entitled, “NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of manned
flight?,” for TechRepublic on July 7, 20116:
But we have to do things differently. For one, we have to get out of the business of
owning and operating low Earth orbit transportation systems and hand that off to the
private sector, exercising sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of our astronauts.
We need to focus on deep space exploration, while empowering today’s innovators and
entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. This new approach to getting our crews and cargo into
orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for the American economy.
Our second contention is that NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the
private sector. This shows that the private sector is always a step behind the public
sector. Mike Wall, a Senior Writer for Space.com, wrote an article called "NASA
Unveils New Spaceship for Deep Space Exploration" on May 24, 2011, in which he
reported7:
"The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off
transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can
focus on deep space exploration," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a
statement. "As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are
moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle
on track."
6
http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/ nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-thismean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
7
http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-space-exploration-vehicle-announcement.html
14
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
CON CASE #1
[NASA is Better —2 of 2]
Third, and finally, preferring private investment over government investment
would destroy national identity and US competitiveness in the space exploration
market. William Harwood explains in an article, “Obama ends moon program, endorses
private spaceflight,” for CNet News on February 1, 20108:
"Basically, you're burning the bridge behind you. Even if it's successful, now what you've
done is you've created not a space program for the United States, you've created a
capability to get to low-Earth orbit but there's nothing to do there because there's no
government program," Griffin said. "Where's the market?" Griffin said, "For the U.S.
government to deliberately give up its lead in something that is fundamentally an
enterprise of governments...for the United States to give up something that's an important
part of our national identity in favor of outsourcing it to commercial enterprises when and
as they come into being is bizarre."
The above three contentions show how NASA is a better bet than private companies in
terms of investing in human space exploration. We thank you for your time and
attention. (And we are ready for crossfire.)
8
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
15
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
CON CASE #2
[Public Key to Private—1 of 2]
We all know that private companies compete with each other and are thus less likely to
share their technological developments with others. However, with NASA everything is
public, thus all public investment in NASA is returned right to the public. And here’s the
kicker, the public includes the private sector. Essentially, the public sector is necessary
to the private sector, but the converse is not true. As our case will show, the private
sector is not necessary to the public sector. Thus, the resolution is false: Resolved:
Private sector investment in human space exploration is preferable to public sector
investment.
First, the private sector is only making advancements because of public funding.
NASA reports in 20069:
NASA is making an unprecedented investment in commercial space transportation
services with the hope of creating a competitive market for supply flights to the
International Space Station (ISS). Two industry partners will receive a combined total of
approximately $500 million to help fund the development of reliable, cost-effective
access to low-Earth orbit. The agency is using its Space Act authority to facilitate the
demonstration of these new capabilities. NASA signed Space Agreements Aug. 18 with
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of El Segundo, Calif., and Rocketplane-Kistler
(RpK) of Oklahoma City to develop and demonstrate the vehicles, systems, and
operations needed to support a human facility such as ISS. Once the space shuttle is
retired, NASA hopes to become just one of many customers for a new, out-of-this-world
parcel service.
Second, the private sector is only following NASA. Prior to NASA’s help to the
private sector, the private sector was not exploring space. NASA continues:
The venture marks a break with tradition for the 48-year-old space agency. “This is the
first opportunity NASA has taken to engage entrepreneurs in a way that allows us to
satisfy our needs and lets commercial industry gain a foothold. It could, and should, have
profound impacts on the way NASA does business,” said Marc Timm, acting
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Program executive in NASA’s
Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
9
NASA Invests in Private Sector Space Flight with SpaceX, Rocketplane-Kistler, August
18, 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html.
16
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
CON CASE #2
[Public Key to Private —2 of 2]
Third, and finally, relying on the private sector destroys government’s capabilities
by deferring to private industries. William Harwood writes in an article, “Obama ends
moon program, endorses private spaceflight,” in CNet News on February 1, 201010:
Former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, chief architect of the now-canceled moon
program, told CBS News the shift to commercial space operations was a profound
mistake. "I'm one of the biggest proponents of commercial spaceflight that there is, but it
doesn't yet exist," he said. "I would like an enlightened government policy to help bring it
about, but I don't believe you get there by destroying all your government capability so
there's no option but for the government to do whatever necessary to get the 'commercial
operators' to succeed.
Thus, there can only be but one conclusion: that public investment in human space
exploration is superior and preferable to private investment. We thank you for your time
and attention. (And we are ready for crossfire.)
10
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
17
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
18
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Extensions
NASA has ended its missions leaving room for private sector development.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
An Associated Press account rounds up how NASA legends Neil Armstrong and John
Glenn are leading a group of critics who say that the U.S. space program is ignoring a
long-held belief that there should be a backup plan. Indeed, the end of the Shuttle
program leaves a manned flight vacuum.
Private companies are the future of manned spaceflight.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
In other words, the future of manned flight will depend on companies like SpaceX,
Lockheed Martin and Boeing. If the U.S. can go through the transition to private loworbit vehicles, maintain leadership and keep focused on going to Mars and deep space
perhaps this three-year hiatus is worth it. In the meantime, many folks will wonder if that
Atlantis lift-off is a time to celebrate or mourn.
Private space exploration will result in more exploration than public exploration.
James Heiser, The Private Sector and the future of Space Exploration, The New
American, August 21, 2009, http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/space/1706
The nature of the market, of course, is that if such commercial space programs are not
viable, they will not survive. For a public increasingly frustrated watching a space
bureaucracy that seems dedicated to going nowhere and spending lots of money in the
process, such private ventures are a refreshing alternative. Open and fair competition for
government and corporate contracts offer possibilities to these new companies that may
allow them take the next steps out into the new frontier of the solar system. New frontiers
offer new possibilities for human freedom, and these new companies may help to open
those new frontiers.
19
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Private space exploration companies are already emerging.
James Heiser, The Private Sector and the future of Space Exploration, The New
American, August 21, 2009, http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/space/1706
SpaceX is one of several private ventures (including Mohave Aerospace Ventures and
Virgin Galactic) which have been launched in recent years to develop launch vehicles for
satellites, cargo, and human crews. These private companies have already made
significant advances toward a non-governmental option for manned space flight, most
notably SpaceX’s successful flight of a multistage rocket, and deployment of a satellite to
orbit. The company’s “Dragon” module (which is projected to be capable of carrying
seven passengers) is scheduled for testing, including a fly-by of the International Space
Station, this year.
Public exploration requires expending billions of dollars of public money.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
On the seventh anniversary of the Columbia disaster, President Obama unveiled a
sweeping change of course for the nation's space program Monday, putting an end to
NASA's post-Columbia moon program and shifting development and operation of new
rockets and capsules from the government to private industry. Requesting some $19
billion for NASA in fiscal 2011, the administration announced plans to pump an
additional $6 billion into NASA's budget over the next five years to kick-start
development of a new commercial manned spaceflight capability, including some $500
million in 2011.
NASA’s technology isn’t sophisticated enough to do many manned missions.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
The only U.S. rockets currently flying that are powerful enough to step into the roll of
crew transport in the near term are the Boeing-built Delta 4 and Lockheed Martin Atlas 5
boosters used to launch military, scientific, and commercial satellites. Neither family of
rockets is certified to carry humans.
20
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA has left a void for private sector investment.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from
the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
Where is the US commitment to space exploration? Lack of leadership in our government
and the resulting disarray in NASA has created a vacuum. All of the past four Presidents
recognized what Mary Lynne Dittmar wrote about in her recent Space Review series: that
human space exploration is justified by its importance to the geopolitical interests of the
United States (see “An enduring value proposition for NASA human spaceflight (part
3)”, The Space Review, August 22, 2011). Both Presidents Bush proposed visions for
humans to return to the Moon and then travel to Mars as manifestations of American
greatness. President Clinton was more specific: he got the International Space Station
built in order to engage the post-Soviet Russian aerospace capability in a peaceful
venture serving America’s strategic interests. President Obama tried a broader scientific
and technical rationale, proposing step-by-step American leadership into the solar system
with a first-ever mission to an asteroid then on to Mars. Yet, today, we have no idea
where we are going.
The public sector has failed and public officials have given up.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from
the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
The space station was built, but the visionary long-range programs have all faltered. They
failed to create any political resonance. The situation is now worse than ever with no one
on a national stage advocating human space exploration goals. The Administration seems
to have given up, and Congress is focused only on special interests.
The private sector has a better vision for future exploration than the government.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from
the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
The Lockheed proposal, like that of SpaceX, is driven by their interest in marketing their
new human space transportation vehicle. For Lockheed, the vehicle is Orion, and for
SpaceX, it is Dragon. They both have a long way to go from cargo resupply vehicle to
human transportation vehicle, and even longer to meeting planetary mission
requirements, but, they seem to know where they are going—much more so than does the
government.
21
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
The private sector already has 60 missions a year.
Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still
inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race
Even as doubts swirl about a return to the moon, NASA officials on Thursday marked the
40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar mission by pointing to the inspiration and lessons
drawn from the historic flights. Another lunar trip may be controversial today, but
officials link the lunar legacy to the modern era's growth in private investment in space
travel, which features about 60 rocket launches a year, more satellite development and
even space tourism.
Public sector support for space is dwindling.
Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still
inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race
Since Apollo 11, the NASA budget has fallen to less than 0.6% of the annual federal
budget from its height of 4% at the height of the Apollo program, according to a report by
the Houston Chronicle.
The public sector wants the private sector to take over.
Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still
inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race
A review underway by the Obama administration is expected to cast a critical eye on big
government outlays to return to the moon, he said. He's more optimistic about private
ventures such as Virgin Galactic, which has a partnership with Scaled Composites to
build SpaceShip Two, with plans to charge about $200,000 for a flight into space.
22
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
The public sector needs the private sector to invest otherwise the public sector
cannot complete its missions.
Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps?Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still
inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race
Meanwhile, NASA has hired Space Exploration Technologies, also called SpaceX, to
send unmanned cargo to the International Space Station after the planned retirement of
the Space Shuttle. SpaceX was launched by PayPal founder Elon Musk. Last year,
computer game developer Richard Garriott, the son of an astronaut, paid $35 million to
visit the International Space Station on a Russian Soyuz spacecraft via a company called
Space Adventures Ltd. of Vienna, Va. Caceres said large aerospace firms such as Boeing
and Lockheed Martin are too dependent on government contracts and are unlikely to take
on the risk of space tourism. However, Boeing is working with NASA on a number of
space exploration projects, including aspects of the government's Constellation program,
a spokesperson said.
Using taxpayer dollars on space exploration makes little sense.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
If you were to believe many of the speakers at this year's International Space
Development Conference (ISDC), entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan and non-profit CEOs
like Peter Diamandis are prepared to go it alone into space. In his opening remarks, Rutan
stated that "Taxpayer-funded research makes absolutely no sense" and likened the current
Vision for Space Exploration to an exercise in archeology. Diamandis said, "We need to
get off the government dole."
The public sector has failed to inspire young people about going into space.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
Even the large aerospace companies--who most keenly felt Rutan's barbs--had to admit
that NASA has not been particularly inspiring. John Stevens from Lockheed-Martin
Space Systems expressed concern that the current national space program has failed to
inspire young people. He lamented the fact that "there's no excitement in NASA manned
programs." Art Stephenson, Sector Vice President, Space Exploration Systems, NorthrupGrumman, admitted, "we don't always pick the hard thing."
23
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA has sufficiently explored space to turn things over to the private sector.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
However, some advocates believe the time for businesses to take over space operations is
now. According to space policy consultant Jim Muncy, the $500 million Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program represents a breakthrough in NASA
thinking about space operations because it really offers the private sector a chance to do
what only Russia does now: resupply the International Space Station. Muncy cautioned,
however, that private entrepreneurs need to prove their abilities through success first.
Prior to the award of COTS, no small aerospace company out of the current group of
aspirants has yet launched a payload to orbit.
NASA lacks the institutional creativity to come up with new projects. It frequently
turns to the private sector for ideas.
Michael Cooney, Network World, "NASA, DARPA want public input for futuristic space
exploration ideas" NetworkWorld Online, June 17, 2011,
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/061711-nasa-darpa.html
DARPA and NASA Ames Research Center today said they are soliciting abstracts,
papers, topics and members for discussion panels, to be part of the 100 Year Starship
Study Symposium to be held in Orlando, Fla., from Sept. 30 through Oct. 2. "This won't
just be another space technology conference -- we're hoping that ethicists, lawyers,
science fiction writers, technologists and others, will participate in the dialog to make
sure we're thinking about all the aspects of interstellar flight," David Neyland, director of
the Tactical Technology Office for DARPA, said in a statement. "This is a great
opportunity for people with interesting ideas to be heard, which we believe will spur
further thought, dreaming and innovation."
24
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA lacks an investment strategy that will ultimately threaten its program.
The Honorable Sherwood Boehler, Chairman of the Government Accountability Office,
GAO Report, July 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-817R
Although NASA is continuing to refine its exploration architecture cost estimates, the
agency cannot at this time provide a firm estimate of what it will take to implement the
architecture. The absence of firm cost estimates is mainly due to the fact that the program
is in the early stages of its life cycle. NASA will be challenged to implement the
architecture recommended in the study within its projected budget. Whether using the
architecture study estimates of funds available or NASA's Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Submission for ESMD that was based on the architecture study cost estimates, there are
years when NASA does not have sufficient funding to implement the architecture.
NASA's current acquisition strategy for the CEV places the project at risk of significant
cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance shortfalls because it commits the
government to a long-term product development effort before establishing a sound
business case.
NASA’s accomplishments are overshadowed by its failures.
The Honorable Sherwood Boehler, Chairman of the Government Accountability Office,
GAO Report, July 17, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-817R
Despite many successes in the exploration of space, such as landing the Pathfinder and
Exploration Rovers on Mars, the loss of life, unsuccessful missions, and unforeseen cost
overruns have recently increased the level of concern over the benefits of such
exploration, particularly with regard to human spaceflight activities. NASA has had
difficulty bringing a number of projects to completion, including several efforts to build a
second generation of reusable human spaceflight vehicle to replace the space shuttle.
The government fails at running an effective space program.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
Despite their outrage, the members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation made no comments during the hearing about what is probably the most
damning section in the recently released Columbia accident report — and for good
political reasons. Had they brought it up, it would have revealed Congress' own
culpability in the failure of the United States' space program during the past two decades.
25
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA funding is spent and wasted because it results in no space exploration.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
The report described how, since the 1980s, nearly $5 billion — practically as much as it
cost to build the original shuttle fleet — had been wasted in an effort to build some form
of shuttle replacement. None of the programs NASA started — and that Congress had
approved — ever got off the ground. Most of the programs never even built usable
hardware.
Politicians vote to waste taxpayer money on poorly planned missions that end up
failing. Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today,
September 23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23zimmerman-edit_x.htm
Not much. Mindlessly, they rubber-stamped each new program. Partisanship wasn't
involved in this failure of oversight. Members of both political parties willingly
participated in these wastes of the taxpayers' money.
The private sector can more cost-effectively build new spacecraft.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
During the same years that NASA was wasting a fortune, a handful of new American
rocket companies struggled to finance their own reusable launch systems. Two
companies built hardware; one, Rotary, actually completed several manned test flights.
Their designs were lean and mean; their estimated combined construction costs were
about the same as what NASA had spent on blueprints.
Government investment destroys the market for private investment.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
When the commercial launch industry went bust and their sources of venture capital went
dry, these firms offered their services to NASA as cheap shuttle alternatives. But NASA
was not interested. Funding these upstart and independent projects would have meant
siphoning money from NASA's bloated bureaucracy. The companies went bankrupt, and
no new launch system was ever completed.
26
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
History proves that private companies can be successful at space exploration.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
Yet in the '1960s, when NASA was supposedly bold and innovative and got things done,
the real work was accomplished by companies just like these, not NASA. The agency
merely laid out general specifications for competing private companies, which quickly
and cheaply produce new rockets, capsules and lunar landers, hoping that the government
would buy their good, economical products for decades to come. But once the race to the
moon was over, NASA ended this practice and, like most government agencies, instead
used the money it received from Congress to fund its own ever-growing bureaucracy.
Public funds are better spent investing in private firms will then invest in space
exploration.
Robert Zimmerman, Say no to NASA, yes to private companies, USA Today, September
23, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-09-23-zimmermanedit_x.htm
For the United States to get a shuttle replacement soon and at a reasonable cost, it is
imperative that Congress force NASA to return to its roots. Had the nearly $5 billion the
government wasted in the past two decades gone instead to some of the upstart private
companies struggling to build new commercial spacecraft, we might already have a
shuttle replacement flying right now.
27
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Extensions
There is federal support for public space exploration.
Kenneth Chang, "The Future of NASA? Once Again, Obama Says Nothing" New York
Times, July 20, 2009, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/the-future-of-nasaonce-again-president-obama-says-nothing/
The three Apollo 11 astronauts appeared at the White House today, and just as he had at a
speech at the National Academy of Sciences in April, President Obama spoke in glowing
platitudes of NASA’s past and said almost nothing of NASA’s future. He made a brief
mention of Charles Bolden, the newly confirmed NASA administrator, and Lori Garver,
the new deputy administrator: “We are confident that they are going to be doing
everything that they can in the decade to come to continue the inspirational mission of
NASA.”
NASA needs to lead space exploration so that the US does not have to rely on the
Russians.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
The Wall Street Journal notes that the International Space Station now depends solely on
Russia, the historic rival to the U.S. in the space race. The U.S. and European Space
Agency will depend on Russia’s Soyuz for a lift. In other words, Russia has a monopoly
on manned space flight. Jean-Jacques Dordain, director of the European Space Agency, is
quoted as saying that the situation is “uncomfortable” and a “collective mistake.”
NASA promotes American jobs.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS
News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall
that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA,
its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.
28
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA is not giving up on space exploration.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I’m here to tell you that
American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we
have laid the foundation for success - and for NASA failure is not an option. Once again,
we have the opportunity to raise the bar, to demonstrate what human beings can do if we
are challenged and inspired to reach for something just out of our grasp but not out of our
sights.
NASA is recommitting itself to space exploration.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
When I hear people say - or listen to media reports - that the final Shuttle flight marks the
end of U.S. human spaceflight, I have to say . . . these folks must be living on another
planet. We are not ending human space flight, we are recommitting ourselves to it and
taking the necessary - and difficult - steps today to ensure America’s pre-eminence in
human space exploration for years to come.
The private sector needs NASA to get to the International Space Station.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
American companies and their spacecraft should send our astronauts to the International
Space Station, rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments. That
is what this Administration is committed to, and that is what we are going to do.
Along with supporting the ISS and commercial crew transportation, NASA will pursue
two critical building blocks for our deep space exploration future - a deep space crew
vehicle and an evolvable heavy-lift rocket. And we will make the technology investments
required to begin the era of deep space exploration today.
29
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA is already further ahead of the private sector in terms of deep space
exploration.
Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep
Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html
NASA on Tuesday announced a plan to develop a new deep space vehicle, one based on
an earlier capsule concept, in order to send astronauts on expeditions to an asteroid, and
then on to Mars. The spaceship, known as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV),
will be based on designs originally planned for the Orion spacecraft, NASA officials
announced today (May 24). Orion was part of NASA's now-canceled Constellation
program, which aimed to return astronauts to the moon by the 2020s.
NASA is re-shifting its focus to deep space exploration.
Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep
Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html
President Barack Obama shut down the Constellation program last year, tasking NASA
instead with sending people to an asteroid by 2025, and then to aim for crewed Mars
missions by the 2030s. Modifying the Orion capsule design — rather than drawing up
plans for an entirely new spaceship — should help make that feasible, agency officials
said. "We made this choice based on the progress that's been made to date," Doug
Cooke, associate administrator for NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate in
Washington, D.C., told reporters today. "It made the most sense to stick with it [the Orion
design]."
NASA is gearing up for more ambitious space exploration.
Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep
Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html
Since the MPCV is based on existing designs, it won't require a radical rethink. And that
thread of continuity may be welcome at NASA, which is in a period of dramatic
transition. The agency's space shuttle program, for example, will draw to a close this
summer after three decades of service. The shuttle Atlantis' STS-135 mission in July will
be the last for NASA's workhorse orbiter fleet, which will soon be put on display in
museums around the country. [Most Memorable Space Shuttle Missions] In the short
term, NASA astronauts will get rides to the space station aboard Russian Soyuz vehicles.
But over the long haul, Obama's vision calls for commercial American spaceships to
provide this taxi service. NASA is working with and funding several private companies,
such as California-based SpaceX, to help them develop these new craft. That move is
intended to free NASA up for more ambitious exploration efforts.
30
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA contracts with the private sector, so the both should work together and are
equally valuable.
Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep
Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html
Lockheed Martin Corp., NASA's prime contractor for Orion, will continue work to
develop the MPCV spacecraft. So far, NASA has already invested a little more than $5
billion in the spaceship, which is pretty far along, Cooke said. For example, Lockheed
has already built a full-size mock-up vehicle, called a Ground Test Article, and will soon
subject it to a series of rigorous trials at a facility in Colorado. The gumdrop-shaped
MPCV is about 16.5 feet (5 m) wide at its base and weighs about 23 tons. The space
capsule will have a pressurized volume of 690 cubic feet (20 cubic meters), with 316
cubic feet (9 cubic m) of habitable space, according to an official description. It's
designed to carry four astronauts at a time and return to Earth with splashdowns in the
Pacific Ocean off the California coast. The spacecraft will be NASA's primary vehicle
for delivering astronauts to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit, such as asteroids or
Mars. Such journeys would take months, and the four astronauts won't be cooped up in
the cramped MPCV the entire time. Rather, the capsule will meet up with some type of
habitation module in space, making the trip much more comfortable.
NASA is handing off travel to the space station to the private sector. This shows
that the private sector is always a step behind the public sector.
Mike Wall, Senior Writer for Space.com, "NASA Unveils New Spaceship for Deep
Space Exploration" May 24, 2011, http://www.space.com/11765-nasa-deep-spaceexploration-vehicle-announcement.html
"The NASA Authorization Act lays out a clear path forward for us by handing off
transportation to the International Space Station to our private sector partners, so we can
focus on deep space exploration," NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said in a
statement. "As we aggressively continue our work on a heavy lift launch vehicle, we are
moving forward with an existing contract to keep development of our new crew vehicle
on track."
31
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
History proves that NASA’s exploration is necessary for opening up markets for the
private sector.
NASA, NASA Invests in Private Sector Space Flight with SpaceX, Rocketplane-Kistler,
August 18, 2006, http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/COTS_selection.html
NASA expects that purchasing commercial space transportation services will be more
economical than developing government systems of comparable capability. This could
free up additional resources for lunar missions and other activities beyond low-Earth
orbit. The biggest benefit of the anticipated cost savings is the opening of new markets
for an emerging industry, according to Lindenmoyer. "If we had cost-effective access,
many new markets -- biotechnology, microgravity research, industrial parks in space,
manufacturing, tourism -- could start to open. That's what is so important about this
effort."
The president is capable of cutting back over-expenditures in NASA. The problem
is self-correcting.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
The Obama administration concluded the Constellation program, which has cost
taxpayers more than $9 billion so far, "was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in
innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies," according to a budget
summary. "Using a broad range of criteria, an independent review panel determined that
even if fully funded, NASA's program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo
era...was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential
alternatives."
Deferring to the private sector costs the government millions more, and all that
money is going to the Russians, not back into the private sector for US economic
development.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
In a startling break with the past, the Obama administration ordered NASA to focus on a
new initiative that would effectively outsource manned flight, turning to private industry
to design and develop the rockets and spacecraft needed to carry U.S. astronauts to and
from the space station. Between the shuttle's retirement and the emergence of a new
manned rocket system, U.S., European, Japanese, and Canadian astronauts will be forced
to hitch rides on Russian Soyuz rockets at more than $50 million a ticket.
32
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
There is no timeframe for private commercial development.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
Other companies are in the process of developing new spacecraft to carry supplies to the
space station after the shuttle's retirement. But it remains to be seen how long it might
take any of the commercial interests to develop, test, and deploy a manned rocket system.
The private sector is not controlled or overseen by NASA.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
It also is not yet clear what sort of control and oversight NASA will have in the new
commercial arena, whether astronauts will remain government employees or private
contractors, or how the agency's decades of operational experience might be leveraged by
commercial operators.
The private sector will lack necessary safety measures.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
Bolden and Garver provided no details into how the new program will be executed, but
Bolden insisted safety will remain a top priority. "NASA will set standards and processes
to ensure that these commercially built and operated crew vehicles are safe," he said. "No
one cares about safety more than I. I flew on the space shuttle four times. I lost friends in
the two space shuttle tragedies.
The government can refocus its missions and rely on technological developments in
the private sector.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from
the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
Not only do these ideas need study and encouragement (and seed funding), but their
context as private company contributions to a national vision needs to be harnessed and
used. That is happening in Earth orbit in communications, navigation, remote sensing,
and, now, in transportation. We can do that beyond Earth orbit, too—it just requires
government investment to be refocused from the rocket to nowhere to missions to
somewhere.
33
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
The public sector has to provide incentives for the private sector to even go to space.
This means that it is best if the public sector proceeds because the private sector
lacks the will to do so without economic incentives.
Steve Gelsi, Reporter, "More giant leaps? Forty years on, Apollo 11 lunar mission still
inspires the private sector" MarketWatch, July 16, 2009,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apollo-legacy-private-sector-leads-space-race
As funding shrinks, the government will likely provide incentives and guidance for
private enterprise fixed on space, similar to its role in regulating and encouraging other
industries, said Marco Caceres, an analyst with the Teal Group, an aerospace research
firm. Caceres said he's looking toward commercial space tourism, rather than
government programs, to seed future space exploration.
NASA has the institutional experience and capabilities that are not yet available in
the private sector.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
What is fuelling this libertarian streak in the space advocacy community? For starters,
NASA has been struggling to get the Shuttle returned to flight, while small private
ventures like Rutan's success with SpaceShipOne in 2004 have generated excitement in a
way the Vision for Space Exploration has not. It should be noted, however, that
advocates continue to lobby Congress to support the Vision, partially out of loyalty,
partially from an understanding that NASA can still do things that smaller operators like
Scaled Composites or SpaceX cannot do--yet.
Conventional wisdom supports that NASA must lead the way before private
investment can get off the ground.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
The conventional wisdom among the NASA/prime contractor community is that
government has to plow the way first, and then businesses can take over--a sentiment that
was echoed by both John Eldon Vice President and Program Manager, for Boeing's
Constellation program and NASA's Deputy Director Shana Dale.
34
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA has opened up doors for private investment, thus the public sector should
stay ahead of the private sector.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
NASA has also opened up its development process to private and academic innovation by
sponsoring the Centennial Challenges, echoing the prizes that built early aviation and, of
course, the X-Prize. The latest Centennial Challenge--the Lunar Lander Analog--will be
administered by the X-Prize Foundation in October of this year. That Challenge will
occur during the X-Prize Cup in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where Diamandis and
company will be presiding over the latest round of suborbital tourist hopefuls as well as
rocket-powered aircraft races. The State of New Mexico itself has passed legislation to
build a $225 million spaceport to provide a base for space tourism companies when they
finally open for business. With multiple private events like this happening, it is hard for
advocates to repress the belief that privately funded spaceflight is just around the corner.
Both sectors will inevitably have to work with each other. But the public sector will
be the one that needs to do the more advanced missions first.
Bart Leahy, National Space Society, Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public
Funding Debate, May 12, 2006, http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-privateinvestment-public-funding-debate.html
Once the Shuttle is retired and CEV begins operations, advocates and entrepreneurs will
most likely see a mixed space economy: one where government does the more difficult
activities, like flying first to the Moon and Mars, while the private sector--both the
aerospace giants and the newcomers--slowly builds a respectable commercial presence in
Earth orbit. As Jim Muncy put it, "He (Griffin) doesn't want to need us, but NASA can't
do it all."
Government space exploration will be needed to promote international peace.
European Space Agency, The Future of European Space Exploration TOWARDS A
EUROPEAN LONG-TERM STRATEGY, Executive Report 2005
On a global scale, space exploration provides a visible and unifying challenge to
humanity and offers opportunities for broad international engagement and participation.
It can contribute to global societal security through sharing of knowledge, international
cooperation and economic development.
35
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
NASA is dedicated to gender equality.
Irene Vitale , NASA Promotes Science and Technology For Girls, March 21, 2007,
http://www.girlstalk.com/blog/2011/03/22/nasa-promotes-science-and-technology-forgirls/
NASA wants to inspire the next generation of women to pursue careers in aeronautics
and space exploration. They recently gave 200 female elementary and high school
students in the Washington D.C. area a chance to interact with astronaut Tracy Caldwell
Dyson, who just returned from a six-month stay aboard the international space station.
Dyson shared her experiences on the orbiting laboratory and talked about who inspired
her to become an astronaut: Teacher in Space Christa McAuliffe, who died in the space
shuttle Challenger in 1986. Also on hand were NASA aerospace education specialist
Trena Ferrell, who joined a panel of other women working in NASA’s science and
technology arena. “Women have made tremendous contributions to NASA over the
years,” says NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, who hosted the event.” They’ve
been astronauts, scientists, engineers, program managers, and served in many other
capacities. We have an obligation to reach out to the next generation and inspire today’s
girls to pursue science and technology careers.
NASA’s new missions will inspire youth.
Catalina Camia, reporter, Obama promotes new NASA plans, USA Today, April 15,
2010, http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/04/obama-promotesnew-nasa-plans/1
"Exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation," he said. "If we fail to
press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future." He said that by 2025
he expects U.S. astronauts to reach an asteroid for the first time, and then to orbit Mars by
the 2030s. Obama's message was unmistakable: He wants the U.S. to be thinking beyond
a return to the moon. The president has been criticized for his decision to abandon a
manned mission to the moon, which was an idea of his predecessor, George W. Bush.
Obama candidly told the crowd of about 200 NASA workers, politicians and guests that
"we've been there" already and that NASA's sights should be trained higher and farther.
NASA’s plans will substantially expand human space exploration, we should not
leave this just to the private sector alone.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
"Imagine trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year, people fanning out across
the inner solar system, exploring the moon, asteroids, and Mars nearly simultaneously in
a steady stream of firsts," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told reporters. "And
imagine all of this being done collaboratively with nations around the world. That is what
the president's plan for NASA will enable, once we develop the new capabilities to make
it a reality."
36
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Blocks
A/T: Federal Government Supports NASA
1. This does not matter. Just because our federal official support something does not
mean that it is true. Our federal officials once supported slavery; this does not make
slavery preferable.
2. The public sector has failed and public officials have given up.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society, Exploration initiatives from
the private sector, The Space Review, August 29, 2011,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1916/1
The space station was built, but the visionary long-range programs have all faltered. They
failed to create any political resonance. The situation is now worse than ever with no one
on a national stage advocating human space exploration goals. The Administration seems
to have given up, and Congress is focused only on special interests.
37
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Blocks
A/T:
NASA Ahead of the Private Sector
1. This just isn’t true. NASA’s technology isn’t sophisticated enough to do many
manned missions. William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private
spaceflight, CNet News, February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_310445227-239.html
The only U.S. rockets currently flying that are powerful enough to step into the roll of
crew transport in the near term are the Boeing-built Delta 4 and Lockheed Martin Atlas 5
boosters used to launch military, scientific, and commercial satellites. Neither family of
rockets is certified to carry humans.
2. If NASA is ahead it’s only because the government has maintained a monopoly on
space exploration and excluded private companies. This is a reason why the public sector
is worse; it is more anti-competitive than the private sector could possibly be.
38
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Blocks
A/T:
Private sector viable only because of NASA
1. This is not true. Private companies are just now becoming rich enough to invest in
space exploration. For example, Google’s economic growth as allowed it to sponsor its
own space race.
2. This does not mean that NASA is still viable. NASA had a good legacy up until we
landed on the moon. After that, NASA has been irrelevant.
39
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Pro Blocks
A/T:
Space is humanity’s common heritage.
1. If this were true, then efforts at the International Space Station should have been more
successful. Rather, nations are still engaged in a space race.
2. But even assuming space is humanity’s common heritage, our governments certainly
aren’t getting us there. Rather, they are standing in the way of us recognizing and
benefiting from humanity’s common heritage and thus we should turn to the private
sector.
40
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Blocks
A/T
No Federal Support
1. Even if this is true, our argument is that there should be more federal support and
public investment. Just because there might be little federal support, this does not mean
that things should be that way.
2. Their argument is wrong: There is federal support for public space exploration.
Kenneth Chang, "The Future of NASA? Once Again, Obama Says Nothing" New York
Times, July 20, 2009, http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/the-future-of-nasaonce-again-president-obama-says-nothing/
The three Apollo 11 astronauts appeared at the White House today, and just as he had at a
speech at the National Academy of Sciences in April, President Obama spoke in glowing
platitudes of NASA’s past and said almost nothing of NASA’s future. He made a brief
mention of Charles Bolden, the newly confirmed NASA administrator, and Lori Garver,
the new deputy administrator: “We are confident that they are going to be doing
everything that they can in the decade to come to continue the inspirational mission of
NASA.”
41
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Blocks
A/T
NASA is dying away.
1. This is because NASA lacks funding. We are arguing that NASA needs more
funding.
2. NASA promotes American jobs.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS
News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall
that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA,
its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.
42
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Blocks
A/T
Private sector is better for the economy.
1. This does not mean that the private sector’s investment will get us any further into
space.
2. NASA also promotes American jobs.
Larry Dignan, NASA's last Shuttle mission: What does this mean for the future of
manned flight?, TechRepublic, July 7, 2011, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/geekend/
nasas-last-shuttle-mission-what-does-this-mean-for-the-future-of-manned-flight/7323
The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS
News notes. So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall
that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA,
its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan.
43
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
Con Blocks
A/T
Public Spending
Public spending on public space exploration goes to technological development and
opening up of private markets. It is not spent just so NASA astronauts can visit
space.
William Harwood, Obama ends moon program, endorses private spaceflight, CNet News,
February 1, 2010, http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-10445227-239.html
Over that same five years, some $7.8 billion will be earmarked for new technology
development, including autonomous rendezvous, orbital fuel transfer systems, and
closed-loop life support systems. Another $3.1 billion will support development of new
propulsion technologies needed by future heavy-lift rockets. And $3 billion will go to pay
for a series of robotic missions to the moon and beyond to test systems needed for
eventual manned flights.
44
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
PRO CASE #1
PREFLOW
Private sector
investment in human
space exploration
provides for the most
economical way to
promote space
exploration
CI: Private
commercial space
launch will boost
economic
competition, open up
new jobs, and
reduce the cost of
human space
exploration. William
Harwood, 2010
C2: Private
investment is better
because it budgets
its resources better.
Lou Friedman, 2011
C3” Private
companies are
developing ideas for
space exploration.
Lou Friedman 2011
45
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
PRO CASE #2
PREFLOW
Private sector is the
better investor
CI: NASA has had
several missions that
have been paid for,
but failed. Robert
Zimmerman 2004
CII: the public
sector is risk averse
because it is tied to
public sentiments.
Thus, private
investment is better
because only the
companies bear the
costs of their
failures. Bart Leahy
2006
CIII: Public
investment trades off
with other resources
needed for the
public. The
European Space
Agency 2005
46
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
CON CASE #1
PREFLOW
NASA has more
promise than any
individual company in
the private sector
CI: NASA is better
for deep space
exploration, it is only
handing off loworbit development to
private firms. Larry
Dignan 2011
CII: NASA is
handing off travel to
the space station to
the private sector.
This shows that the
private sector is
always a step behind
the public sector.
Mike Wall, 2011
CIII: preferring
private investment
over government
investment would
destroy national
identity and US
competitiveness in
the space
exploration market.
William Harwood
2010
47
The Forensics Files ©
October
The PFD File
Space
CON CASE #2
PREFLOW
The public sector is
necessary to the
private sector, but
the converse is not
true
CI: The private
sector is only
making
advancements
because of public
funding. NASA
2006
CII: The private
sector is only
following NASA.
Prior to NASA’s
help to the private
sector, the private
sector was not
exploring space.
NASA continues
CIII: Relying on
the private sector
destroys
government’s
capabilities by
deferring to private
industries. William
Harwood 2010
48