Tradeoff Disad MGW 2014
Space DA
1NC
Space spending high now but Obama is looking for excuses to cut it
Dreier 14 (Casey, “Congress Rejects Cuts to Planetary Exploration…Again¶ “, 1-14,
http://www.planetary.org/press-room/releases/2014/congress-rejects-cuts.html)
Pasadena, CA (January 14, 2014) - The
FY2014 Omnibus spending bill, now before the U.S. Congress, once again rejects cuts
to NASA's Planetary Science Division that were sought by the White House. The Planetary Society commends Congress for this
action, and strongly encourages the White House to prioritize Planetary Science in its future budget requests commensurate with its strong public
and legislative support. The Society supports the passage of this bill for its additional Planetary Science funding as well as its overall funding
levels allocated for NASA.¶ Congress plans to allocate $1.345 billion for NASA's Planetary Science Division,
$127 million more than requested by the White House. We strongly support the increase, but note that the number is well
below the program's historical average of $1.5 billion per year. ¶ The additional funding ensures the steady development of
the next major mission to Mars in 2020, which will store samples of the red planet for eventual return to Earth. It also provides
$80 million for continued research into a flagship-class mission to explore Europa, the enigmatic moon of
Jupiter that was recently revealed to be spouting its liquid-water ocean into space.¶ "Exploring Europa is no
longer a 'should' but a 'must'," said Casey Dreier, The Planetary Societazy's Director of Advocacy, "Congress made a smart decision to
continue studying the Europa Clipper mission concept. There is bipartisan support and strong public interest in exploring Europa, the mission is
technically feasible, and it is high priority within the scientific community. The White House should embrace this bold search for life and request
a new start for this mission in FY2015."¶ The Society also supports the congressional recommendation that NASA increase the pace of small
planetary missions. We are particularly happy to see full congressional and White House support for restarting the nation's Plutonium-238
production capability, which provides electrical power for many planetary science missions that can't utilize solar panels. ¶ The White
House has requested cuts to planetary science for two years in a row, and for two years in a row Congress
has rejected them. In light of this and the more than 50,000 messages sent to Congress and President Obama in support of NASA's
planetary science program last year, we urge the Office of Management and Budget to recognize the unprecedented public and legislative support
for solar system exploration, and propose $1.5 billion for this program in their FY2015 budget request.
Increased funding for ocean exploration directly trades off with NASA
Mangu-Ward 13 (Katherine Mangu-Ward is managing editor of Reason magazine and a Future Tense fellow at the New America
Foundation., September 4, 2014, SLATE, “Is the Ocean the real Final Fontier?”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html)
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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—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.
NASA funding key to space colonization
Siegel 14 (Ethan, astrophysicist, science communicator & NASA columnist, 06.05.14, “NASA’s Budget
‘Victory’ is Anything But¶ “, https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/nasas-budget-victory-is-anythingbut-2d6c4b28981)
There’s no doubt in terms of the technology developed, the education that’s arisen, the amount scientists have
learned, or the public benefits in terms of return-on-investment (not to mention job creation) that these
investments have all been a wild success by all metrics. Every time you use a GPS, make a cellphone call or send a text, or
even simply take the time to wonder about the Universe, you’re benefitting from the paltry investment we made in understanding and exploring
the Universe.¶ So stop it already with the small dreams of hanging on to the table scraps; dream of the main course. Dream of the big missions
and hopes that we can achieve right now, if we only invest the realistic and comparatively small amounts of capital necessary to make it happen.¶
Dream of humans living on and studying Mars, something we could achieve with an investment of about $50 billion over 10
years. Could we do it with today’s technology? We could have done it with “modern” technology for that amount 20 years ago. If we want it, we
can do it; all we have to do is invest.¶ Are you excited about the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope? Yes, it’s
expensive; it’s going to be an $8.7 billion project when all is said and done, but it’s poised to teach us
about the Universe nearly twice as far back, distance-wise, as Hubble can reach.¶ Are you enthralled by the
discoveries of planets around other stars, and what the Kepler mission has accomplished? Do you want to learn more about the potentially
habitable ones? About Earth-like (or smaller) planets in the habitable zones of stars?¶ Of course you are; our dreams of what we can do on Earth
are limited by the scope and scale of the planet, but the Universe? Now there’s something to dream about!¶ The thing is, for around $2-to-
10 billion dollars apiece over the span of a few years, we could have any or all of the following projects:¶
SAFIR, a far-infrared space telescope that would teach us about the Universe in wavelengths we’ve never looked —
about gas, dust, star-formation and distant galaxies — to approximately 100-1,000 times greater precision than we’ve
ever looked. This would be the next-generation successor to Spitzer.¶ IXO, or the international X-ray observatory, the
next-generation successor to Chandra. We could measure and detect black holes to unprecedented
accuracy, gain a better understanding of the supermassive ones at the centers of galaxies, learn about
regions of hot, colliding gas in galaxy clusters, study more distant galaxies, AGNs, galactic outflows and
more. This would be about 100 times more powerful than Chandra.¶ The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) and the Space
Interferometry Mission (SIM PlanetQuest), both of which would hunt for and take actual, direct images of
Earth-sized planets in the habitable zones around stars capable of supporting chemical-based life.¶ WFIRST,
or the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope, an infrared space observatory that is the best-designed piece of equipment ever for studying dark
energy, hitting on the three-pronged approach of measuring baryon acoustic oscillations, measuring distant supernovae and weak gravitational
lensing all to unprecedented accuracy. The plans for WFIRST have grown out of first SNAP (the SuperNova Acceleration Probe) and then JDEM
(the Joint Dark Energy Mission), projects that could have flown every year for the past 13 years, if only the funding would materialize. ¶ And
LISA, or the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, which would have accurately measured and directly
detected gravitational waves for the first time.
Multiple natural factors make extinction inevitable unless we pursue Mars
Schulze-Makuch and Davies 10 (Dirk *Ph.D., School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Washington
State University; Paul, Ph.D., Beyond Center at Arizona State University, "To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission
to Mars", Oct/Nov, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html, CMR)
There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are a vulnerable
species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova
explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats
to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global
warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human
species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The
Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of
resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained
colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate
surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential
minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes
about six months with current chemical rocket technology.
2NC UQ - Space
NASA will be the target for budget cuts – empirics proves
Tameez 14 (Mustafa, IN THE LOOP, published July 5, 2014, “Obama’s Secret New Tax”,
http://blog.chron.com/intheloop/2014/02/nasas-tea-party-primary/)
Every time a budget cut is needed, NASA and the Space Program are on the chopping block. According to
Technician Online, at its peak in 1966 NASA funding amounted to 4.4 percent of the entire federal budget. In
2012, that has decreased to 0.48 percent. In other words, for every two dollars the federal government spends,
NASA receives a penny. And now in 2014, not just NASA but the entire Houston region is bracing for another
proposed $200 million cut for planetary sciences. Whoever is elected to this seat has a huge role to play in ensuring that NASA
and the future of the space program are protected. But in Congress, if you won’t stick up for your own district, no one else is going to either. The
competition to become the nexus for private space exploration is fierce and any Representative who allows our local advantage in this arena to
dissipate should face serious questions from their constituents.
Space funding outweighs oceans now
Casti 13 (Taylor, Ocean vs. Space: Which Is the True Final Frontier?, September 25,
http://mashable.com/2013/09/25/ocean-vs-space/)
Space may be called "the final frontier," but anyone who has seen a picture of a goblin shark or a vampire squid will agree that the ocean can be
downright alien. Both realms are ripe for exploration, offer extensive potential benefits and come at a hefty
price. So which wins in a battle between the two for the title of the final frontier? Which area of exploration will
result in the greater good for humanity? Dr. Paul Bunje, senior director of prize development and ocean health at the XPRIZE Foundation, and
Alexandra Hall, senior director of Google Lunar XPRIZE, met on the Social Good Summit stage to duke it out on Tuesday. Space has been
the clear leader for a long time. $17.8 billion dollars is going toward space exploration in 2013, compared
to the $5 billion dollars that goes toward oceanic exploration. This discrepancy has led to skewed results: While 500
individuals have been sent into space, only three have visited the deepest part of the ocean, the Mariana Trench. We have better maps of
the surface of Mars than we do of our own ocean floor, and we understand more about the dark side of the
moon than ocean life. Despite centuries of ocean exploration, we’ve only covered about 5% of the ocean.
NASA budget high now – recovered funding lost in the sequester
Nelson Newsroom 14 (Bill Nelson, Senator for Florida, 01.14.14, “Congressional budget deal a
“win” for NASA”,http://www.billnelson.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/congressional-budget-deala-win-for-nasa)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Included in the massive budget bill unveiled last night by congressional leaders from both sides of the
political aisle is enough money for NASA to continue its deep space exploration program and other priorities,
according to U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL).¶ ¶ Nelson, who chairs the Senate subcommittee that oversees the nation’s
space program, is one of the leading architects of a plan to build a new monster rocket and crew capsule for deep space
exploration. The $1.1 trillion budget includes $4.1 billion for exploration, or, as Nelson said Tuesday, enough to keep
the new space launch system on track. ¶ ¶ " This is a big win ," the lawmaker added. ¶ ¶ Overall, the space agency would get
$17.65 billion, which is significantly higher than the roughly $16.2 billion NASA would have received
had the so-called sequester or across-the-board budget cuts remained in effect.¶ ¶ In addition to funding the space launch system,
there's also nearly $700 million for the continued development of commercial space ventures.
Funding is high now – any cuts would devastate NASA’s long-term missions
King 14 (Ledyard, USA Today Staff, 01.14.14, “Budget deal would preserve NASA's big missions”,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/14/spending-bill-would-preserve-major-nasamissions/4480537/)
WASHINGTON — The nation's space program would fare reasonably well under a fiscal 2014 spending bill
expected to pass Congress later this week.¶ The $1.012 trillion package includes $17.65 billion for NASA, only
slightly below what President Obama had requested. It
includes funding for the agency's major space and science
initiatives, including a crewed mission to Mars by the 2030s.¶ The fiscal year began Oct. 1 and runs through Sept. 30.¶
"This is a big win," said Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, who chairs the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation subcommittee that
handles space policy.¶ NASA officials had worried about the effect that prolonged sequestration spending cuts
would have on science and exploration. They warned lawmakers that another year of the automatic cuts would be bad news for an
agency that budgets for the long term and needs consistent funding sources for its multi-year missions.¶
In fiscal 2013, NASA received nearly $16.9 billion. The House Appropriations Committee had approved a NASA budget of $16.6 billion for
fiscal 2014 while the Senate Appropriations Committee called for $18 billion. Obama had asked for $17.7 billion. ¶ STORY: Another year of
sequestration would delay NASA missions¶ STORY: White House extends space station support for 4 years ¶ The spending bill would
give NASA:¶ — $3.1 billion for the Mars mission, including $1.2 billion for the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle that will carry
astronauts to Mars and $1.9 billion for the Space Launch System that will build and guide the rocket that will propel them to the Red Planet.¶ —
$696 million for commercial space activities, mainly to further development of private spacecraft to carry astronauts to the
International Space Station. NASA has set 2017 as a target date for the first crewed mission. Until then, American taxpayers must pay more than
$70 million each time Russia gives an astronaut a ride to the orbiting lab.¶ — $5.2 billion for science missions, including $80 million
for a mission to explore Europa, one of Jupiter's moons.¶ — $566 million for aeronautics, including "cutting-edge research into cleaner
and quieter airplanes," according to NASA. ¶ The bill also would cap money for the James Webb Space Telescope at $8 billion. The telescope,
Hubbell's much-touted successor, has been beset by cost overruns and schedule delays. ¶ The bill also would continue to bar NASA from sharing
any sensitive information with China.¶ The bill keeps NASA's deep-space exploration program on track and will
continue to spur American innovation and keep the U.S. the world leader in space exploration.
NASA budget will get cut – congressional disputes
Leone ’14 (NASA reporter for Space News, also covers other civilian-run U.S. government space
programs and a growing number of entrepreneurial space companies. “NASA's $17.5 Billion Budget
Request for 2015 Would Fund New Science Missions, Ground Flying Telescope”
http://www.space.com/24914-nasa-2015-budget-request-revealed.html)
The White House's 2015 budget request was released about a month late and sets the stage for a new round of old disputes between the White
House and Capitol Hill. 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.The 2015 budget provides no
official estimate of the total cost for NASA's proposed asteroid redirect mission, which the agency announced in its 2014 budget request. In this
mission, a new robotic spacecraft launching later this decade would redirect a small asteroid to lunar space, where astronauts could explore it by
2025 using SLS and Orion. The White House proposed spending $133 million in 2015 on capabilities needed by, but not specific to, the asteroid
mission: next-generation solar electric space propulsion, and improved asteroid detection. NASA said last year that the redirect mission, which
has received a chilly reception on Capitol Hill, might cost roughly $2 billion.
2NC UQ – Space Colonization
Current NASA funding is high – Congress approved Orion and Europa missions
Baker 14 (David, PhD in Earth and Planetary Physics, 01.20.14, “NASA gets budget boost”,
http://www.bis-space.com/2014/01/20/12315/nasa-gets-budget-boost)
In a suprise move, legislators have approved a budget for NASA higher than expected, approving a spending
plan for fiscal 2014 of $17.6 billion. This is only $100 million lower than the White House requested but $700 million
more than the 2013 budget. That budget was subject to the severe sequestration which hit all US government bodies
last year.¶ Fiscal 2014 ends on 30 September but, since it began on 1 October 2013 NASA has been running on the ‘frozen’ 2013 budget of $16.9
billion. Operating under the assumption that this year would, at best, be no better than last year, the surprise agreement was reached in the House
on 15 January and in the Senate on 16 January, being welcomed by President Obama.¶ The really good news for 2014 is that Congress has
approved a record $696 million for commercial crew transportation services. This is less than the $821 million requested and $171 million of that
is being held pending a thorough cost-benefit analysis. Until that is completed, NASA will have to work under a continuing spending limit of
$525 million approved for fiscal 2013.¶ Congress has also given its support for a ring-fenced James Webb Space
Telescope, projected to launch on an Ariane V in 2018, while endorsing the Space Launch System rocket and the
Orion spacecraft with full funding. Orion is expected to make its first flight into space later this year on a
Delta IV rocket, followed by the first SLS flight in 2017 and a projected manned flight four years after
that.¶ There is some concern, however, over NASA’s future deep-space programme, with Congressional committees calling on the agency for
clarity on specific missions being considered. The proposed Asteroid Redirect Mission in which Orion would visit a small asteroid manoeuvred
into a near-lunar location, lacks definition, says Congress. NASA has been asked to conduct a mission concept analysis and not to go ahead until
approved by appropriate Congressional committees.¶ Planetary science also fares well, getting over $1.3 billion for fiscal
2014, a 9% increase over the amount requested by the White House, which had slashed planetary funding in a shock
move last year. There is specific Congressional approval for a new Discovery-class mission to be announced in May this year for selection
in September 2015.¶ Congress has added funds for the proposed Europa Clipper mission to the Jovian icy moon
in 2021, increasing funds from $70 million in 2013 to $80 million this year.
2NC UQ – Cassini
Cassini is barely holding onto funding now – it’s on the chopping block
Rehnberg 14 (Morgan, COULD THE 2014 BUDGET SAVE CASSINI?, January 15,
http://cosmicchatter.org/news/2014/1/15/could-the-2014-budget-save-cassini)
Despite its incredible successes, recent rumors have suggested that Cassini could be on the chopping
block . Budget shortfalls at NASA, exacerbated by sequestration, has NASA facing a Sophie's Choice:
shut down the successful Cassini or eliminate the popular Curiosity. Cassini and Curiosity represent NASA's two active "flagship"
missions (I'm ignoring Voyager here). These are the largest and most expensive (more than $2 billion each) missions undertaken by the space
agency and are major commitments to studying Saturn and Mars, respectively. In addition to their upfront price tag, each costs in the
neighborhood of 50-60 million dollars a year to operate, significantly more than smaller missions. Although in theory NASA could choose to
eliminate either one, it's
extremely difficult to imagine shutting down the recently-launched Curiosity, especially
given its tremendous public popularity. So, things were not looking great for Cassini, but the 2014 budget
might offer some relief. The current draft of the 2014 federal budget includes an additional $700 million for
increase of about 4%. More importantly, the NASA science office received a larger
proportion of that, about 7%, and planetary science in particular is being boosted about 10%. Whether this money will go to fund
both Curiosity and Cassini or whether NASA was seriously considering eliminating either isn't yet
known. But, the bottom line is that more money for NASA, and planetary science in particular, can't be a bad thing.
NASA over last year's appropriation. That's an
Cassini will be cut if NASA budgets are slashed
Chang 14 (Kenneth, NASA budget implies choices: Cassini or Curiosity?, January 21,
http://thecosmos4.com/2014/01/21/nasa-budget-implies-choices-cassini-or-curiosity/)
This spring, NASA officials will conduct a review of the spacecraft that have outlived their original missions. For
the 2015 fiscal year,
which begins October 1, the agency faces particularly tough choices , in order to balance their books. A decade after
swinging into orbit around Saturn, the venerable Cassini spacecraft is still working, well beyond the four years of science the space
agency had hoped to get. But the spacecraft is running low on maneuvering fuel, and its managers want to end with a
scientific bang – an ambitious agenda that includes 22 orbits through a gap between the planet and its innermost ring
before sending the craft on a death plunge into Saturn in 2017. For several months, however, scientists have worried that NASA,
financially squeezed like the rest of the federal government, could terminate the mission sooner. The Mars
rover Curiosity, which will cost $68 million this year to operate, will complete its two-year primary mission in June 2014, so money for
continued roving will come out of funds dedicated to “extended missions.” For this year, that amount is $140 million, which includes $58 million
for Cassini. Other extended missions include the Messenger spacecraft at Mercury, the Mars rover Opportunity, and the Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter. No one expects NASA to turn off Curiosity, which will not even arrive at its primary science
destination until later this year, raising concerns that Cassini may be on the chopping block.
More recently,
NASA planetary science director James Green told scientists that the perception of Cassini versus Curiosity was inaccurate and that officials
could instead scale back the cost and scope of the extended missions. The agency could also juggle other money to pay for both Cassini and
Curiosity, but that could have consequences like delaying future missions, which themselves are under pressure to deliver the maximum scientific
benefits for a smaller cost.
2NC Link – UQ
NOAA Budget set – doesn’t include the plan
Sullivan, 13 [Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere, and Acting NOAA Administrator, "We Need Your
Help!" Statement from Dr. Kathyrn Sullivan on NOAA's FY 2014 Budget Request. NOAA News, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 14 July 2014.
<http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2013/20130410_budget_statement.html>.]
While the economy
has shown signs of recovery over the past year, continued fiscal uncertainty and tight
budgets mean that government agencies, like so many families and businesses across the country, still face tough choices.
At NOAA, we’re working to fulfill our core mission of science, service and stewardship and balance investments in current and future programs
and services. Americans in all 50 states and territories have come to rely on NOAA’s products and services on a daily basis. Across all of NOAA,
our employees and partners work day in and day out to foster scientific discovery, support economic vitality, and protect our planet’s resources
for future generations. NOAA provides the environmental intelligence that helps citizens, businesses, and governments make smart choices. Just
as every citizen depends on NOAA for weather information, so, too, do businesses rely on NOAA’s services. The fishing and shipping industries
count on NOAA’s nautical charts and information about tides and currents before heading to sea. Farmers depend on our long-range forecasts and
information about the drought to inform decisions. The entire country relies on NOAA’s observations and products to
keep goods moving safely and efficiently through our ports. While we still face significant challenges and an uncertain
budget environment, the fiscal year 2014 budget request shows that we have listened to our stakeholders, exercised the necessary strong fiscal
discipline and worked hard to make the right investments for the whole of NOAA. This year’s budget request of approximately
$5.4 billion aims to: 1) ensure the readiness, responsiveness, and resiliency of communities from coast to
coast; 2) help protect lives and property; and, 3) support vibrant coastal communities and economies.
Ready, Responsive, and Resilient Communities Last year’s onslaught of severe weather events caused
widespread damage and devastated families and businesses. These losses highlighted the need for
communities across the nation to become more ready, more resilient, and more responsive. One recent example
is Hurricane/Post-Tropical Cyclone Sandy (Hurricane Sandy). Hurricane Sandy demonstrated the value NOAA brings to society, as the whole
agency mobilized to help the public prepare for, respond to, and initiate recovery from the storm. In the weeks prior to Hurricane Sandy, NOAA
satellites and observing platforms provided the vital data needed for our forecast enterprise to predict the path and intensity of the storm and all its
impacts. Once Hurricane Sandy passed through the Northeast, NOAA worked side-by-side with Federal, State, and local agencies to aid the
area’s recovery. Our ships surveyed ports and harbors so that maritime commerce could resume. Our aircraft re-mapped the coastal zones,
speeding the flow of aid to damaged communities and homeowners. Our environmental response teams responded to oil and hazmat spills and
assessed environmental damages and debris. Our recovery work continues: NOAA’s coastal expertise, technical tools and information - such as
coastal inundation products, maps, and storm surge modeling capabilities - are helping communities rebuild in a manner that is smarter and safer.
NOAA is the only federal agency with operational responsibility to provide critical and accurate weather,
climate, and ecosystem forecasts that support national safety and commerce, and to protect and preserve
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources. This budget allows NOAA to deliver forecasts and warnings
that can be trusted, provide services in a cost-effective manner, continue to promote preparedness and
resilience to weather-related impacts, and improve the economic value of weather, water, drought, and
climate information. Environmental Intelligence Americans rely on satellite observations every day. NOAA’s environmental observations
are the backbone of our global earth observing system and provide the information needed to provide a holistic picture of our planet from the
depths of the oceans to the surface of the sun. The data supplied by NOAA satellites are critical to the full breadth of
NOAA services and drive our ability to increase community and ecological resilience from the local to
national level, now and into the future. NOAA missions, from issuing accurate weather forecasts to researching climate change,
depend on this integrated suite of observing systems. NOAA’s satellites provide critical data for forecasts and warnings that are vital to every
citizen and to our economy as a whole. They provide warnings for severe weather, enable safe air, land, and marine transportation, and even
contribute directly to life-saving rescue missions. In addition to their key role in weather prediction, NOAA’s satellite observation suite also
provides other benefits such as monitoring coastal ecosystem health to tracking migratory movements of endangered species and monitoring solar
eruptions. Vibrant Coastal Communities and Economies A healthy marine environment provides significant economic benefits to our nation.
NOAA is the primary federal agency responsible for enabling and promoting the sustainable, safe, and efficient use of coastal resources and
coastal places. NOAA plays a critical role in fostering the vitality of the growing coastal population and a productive economy by supporting
sustainable resources that benefit industries, jobs, and provide services that make businesses more efficient and safe. Our investments in the
management of vital marine resources ensure these resources will contribute to thriving communities and their economies well into the future.
Whether it’s supporting science-based stewardship of living marine resources or supporting sound decision-making for human, ecological, and
economic health, NOAA’s science enhances our understanding of our planet’s marine and coastal ecosystems. This budget provides key
investments to support sustainable fisheries, protected resources, habitat conservation and restoration, coastal science, and research and
development opportunities to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. NOAA touches each and every community across the
United States. Our employees are your colleagues, neighbors and friends. NOAA and its employees work each day to maximize U.S.
competitiveness, enable economic growth, foster science and technological leadership, and promote environmental stewardship. This budget
makes the right investments for NOAA while maintaining our commitment to delivering the services,
stewardship and science America needs.
2NC Link – Generic
Ocean activity is expensive
Carlyle 13 (Ryan, BSChE, Subsea Hydraulics Engineer, 1/31/2013 @ 12:11PM , Forbes, “Why Don't
We Spend More On Exploring The Oceans, Rather Than On Space
Exploration?”,http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/01/31/why-dont-we-spend-more-on-exploringthe-oceans-rather-than-on-space-exploration/)
So as someone whose job deals with exploring the ocean deeps — see my answer to Careers: What kinds of problems does a subsea hydraulics engineer solve? — I
can tell you that
the ocean is excruciatingly boring. The vast majority of the seafloor once you get >50 miles
offshore is barren, featureless mud. On face, this is pretty similar to the empty expanses of outer space, but in
space you can see all the way through the nothing, letting you identify targets for probes or telescopes. The
goals of space exploration are visible from the Earth, so we can dream and imagine reaching into the heavens. But in the deep oceans, visibility is
less than 100 feet and travel speed is measured in single-digit knots. A simple seafloor survey to run a
100 mile pipeline costs a cool $50 million. The oceans are vast, boring, and difficult/expensive to explore —
so why bother? Sure, there are beautiful and interesting features like geothermal vents and coral reefs. But
throughout most of the ocean these are few and far between. This is a pretty normal view from a subsea robot: Despite the
difficulty, there is actually a lot of scientific exploration going on in the oceans. Here’s a pretty good public website for a science ROV mission offshore Oregon: 2009
Pacific Northwest Expedition To reinforce my point about it being boring, here’OCes a blog entry from that team where they talk about how boring the sea floor is:
2009 Pacific Northwest Expedition What IS really interesting in the deep ocean is the exotic life. You see some crazy animals that are often not well-known to
science. Something floats by the camera 5000 ft down, and you say “what the hell was that?” and no one knows. Usually it’s just some variety of jellyfish, but
occasionally we find giant* isopods: Unfortunately, deep-sea creatures rarely survive the trip to surface. Their bodies are acclimated to the high pressures (hundreds
of atmospheres), and the decompression is usually fatal. Our ability to understand these animals is very limited, and their only connection to the surface biosphere is
We’re fundamentally quite disconnected
from deep ocean life. Also, there is no hope of ever establishing human habitation more than about 1000 ft
deep. The pressures are too great, and no engineering or materials conceivable today would allow us to
build livable-sized spaces on the deep sea floor. The two times humans have reached the deepest part of the ocean, it required a foot-thick
flawless metal sphere with barely enough internal space to sit down. As far as I can tell, seafloor living is all but impossible — a
habitable moon base would be vastly easier to engineer than a seafloor colony. See my answer to International Space
Station: Given the actual space station ISS, would it be cheaper to build the equivalent at 3-4-5 miles deep underwater? Why? To recap: we don’t spend
more time/money exploring the ocean because it’s expensive , difficult, and uninspiring. We stare up at
the stars and dream of reaching them, but few people look off the side of a boat and wish they could go
down there.
through a few food chain connections (like sperm whales) that can survive diving to these depths.
Prefer our evidence – hidden costs make budget demands much higher
Broad 8 (Wiliam, a science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times. He shared two Pulitzer
Prizes, “New Sphere in Exploring the Abyss”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/science/26alvi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
The United States used to have several submersibles — tiny submarines that dive extraordinarily deep. Alvin
is the only one left, and after more than four decades of probing the sea’s depths it is to be retired. Its replacement, costing some $50 million,
is to go deeper, move faster, stay down longer, cut the dark better, carry more scientific gear and maybe —
just maybe — open a new era of exploration. Its architects at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution on Cape Cod
describe it as “the most capable deep-sea research vehicle in the world.” Alvin can transport a pilot and two scientists down
2.8 miles,
providing access to 62 percent of the dark seabed. The new vehicle is expected to descend more than four miles,
opening 99 percent of the ocean floor to inquiry. But the greater depth means that the vehicle’s personnel sphere and its many other systems
will face added tons of crushing pressure. “Technologically, it’s quite challenging,” Robert S. Detrick Jr., a senior scientist and vice president for marine facilities and
operations at Woods Hole, said of forging the new personnel sphere. “It’s also something that hasn’t been done for a long time in the United States.” To better resist
the sea’s pressure, the wall of the new personnel sphere is to be nearly three inches thick, up from Alvin’s two inches. Deep
explorers always use
spheres to make crew compartments because that geometry best resists the crushing force. “We have confidence it
can be done,” Dr. Detrick said in January of the sphere’s forging. “ But we don’t have a lot of margin for error. If the first forging is
bad, it would be quite expensive to redo it.” Just when the replacement Alvin will join the world’s small fleet of submersibles has become
uncertain. Like many federal projects, it faces cost overruns and financing troubles. When first proposed in 2004, the
anticipated bill ran to $21.6 million. But delays set in and the price of materials, planning and contracting
ran higher than expected. Officials say titanium alone has seen a fivefold price increase. The National
Science Foundation, the federal agency that sponsors the project, has too many competing needs to meet
the new estimated cost of about $50 million. So officials at Woods Hole came up with a phased approach that promises to lower the
immediate expense. In an Aug. 8 letter, Susan K. Avery, the president of Woods Hole, outlined the plan to Deborah Kelley, a University of Washington
oceanographer and chairwoman of the Deep Submergence Science Committee, a team of researchers that advises the government on abyssal exploration. The new
personnel sphere, she said, might first be fitted onto Alvin’s body, giving the old submersible a life extension and a capability boost. Alvin would also get new
batteries, new electronics, better lights, cameras and video systems. But the hybrid would be limited to Alvin’s depth of 2.8 miles. The second phase, Dr. Avery said,
would build a new submersible body that would let the replacement vehicle dive to the full intended depth of four miles. How soon? The
original schedule
of 2004 foresaw the replacement vehicle as ready in 2008. Early this year, amid growing uncertainty, the
keepers of the schedule put the date at 2010. Now, the soonest the upgraded Alvin might hit the water is
estimated to be 2011. And the full replacement, according to Woods Hole officials, might not materialize
until 2015. “Phase 2 is about finding additional resources,” Dr. Detrick said. “It’s a matter of money.” Officials talk about a $25 million
shortfall and hopes that a private donor might materialize who could close the gap and ensure the speedy
debut of the new submersible and its program of deep inquiry.
2NC Link – OTEC
OTEC links – initial construction for just one plant is 100 million and requires
constant maintenance
Friedman 14 (Becca, Ocean Energy Council, 03.14, “Examining the Future of Ocean Thermal Energy
Conversion”, http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/examining-future-ocean-thermal-energy-conversion/)
Despite the sound science, a fully functioning OTEC prototype has yet to be developed. The high costs of
building even a model pose the main barrier. Although piecemeal experiments have proven the effectiveness of the individual
components, a large-scale plant has never been built. Luis Vega of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research
estimated in an OTEC summary presentation that a commercial-size five-megawatt OTEC plant could cost from 80 to
100 million dollars over five years. According to Terry Penney, the Technology Manager at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, the combination of cost and risk is OTEC’s main liability. “We’ve talked to inventors and other constituents over the years, and it’s
still a matter of huge capital investment and a huge risk, and there are many [alternate forms of energy] that are less risky that
could produce power with the same certainty,” Penney told the HPR. ¶ Moreover, OTEC is highly vulnerable to the elements in
the marine environment. Big storms or a hurricane like Katrina could completely disrupt energy production by
mangling the OTEC plants. Were a country completely dependent on oceanic energy, severe weather could be debilitating. In addition, there is a
risk that the salt water surrounding an OTEC plant would cause the machinery to “rust or corrode” or “fill
up with seaweed or mud,” according to a National Renewable Energy Laboratory spokesman.¶ Even environmentalists have
impeded OTEC’s development. According to Penney, people do not want to see OTEC plants when they look at the ocean. When
they see a disruption of the pristine marine landscape, they think pollution.
OTEC plants a lot – hidden maintenance fees
Mario 1 (Rupeni, Team Leader at Secretariat of the Pacific Community Adviser at SOPAC Project
Officer at SOPAC, “OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION AND ¶ THE PACIFIC ISLANDS”.
March 2001, SOPAC)
One of the disadvantages
of land-based OTEC plants is the need for a 3 km long cold water pipe to transport
the large volumes of deep seawater required from a depth of about 1000 m. The cost associated with the
cold water pipe represents 75% of the costs of current plant designs. Studies show that OTEC plants smaller than 50
MW cannot compete economically with other present energy alternatives. A 50 MW plant will require 150 m3 /s of cold water thus, the 3 km
long cold water pipeline has to be at least 8 m in diameter. Another disadvantage of a land-based plant would be the discharging
of the cold and warm seawater. This may need to be carried out several hundred metres offshore so as to
reach an appropriate depth before discharging the water to avoid any up dwelling impact on coastal
fringes (i.e., fish, reef, etc). The arrangement also requires additional expense in the construction and maintenance. To minimise construction
costs of the cold water and discharge pipes, a floating OTEC plant could be an option. However, the costs associated
with the maintenance and mooring facility of such a structure is of significance. Further to the structural
needs of the OTEC plant there is also energy required for pumping the sea water from depths of about
1000 m. Meeting the energy requirements for the OTEC plant’s operation is a factor to be noted as the need
to install diesel generators may arise. The economics of energy production have delayed the financing of permanent OTEC plants.
At present, the cost per kWh from OTEC is more than that of the electricity generated from fossil fuels and
decreases with increasing capacity of the power plant.
2NC Link – Oil Drilling
Oil drilling costs tons – easy-to-reach deposits are empty and new reserves are
expensive to access
Heinrich 13 (Holly, StateImpact Texas, 08.02.13, “During Domestic Drilling Boom, Why Are Gas
Prices Still High?”, https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2013/08/01/during-domestic-drilling-boom-why-aregas-prices-still-high/)
The crude oil reserves that are currently being produced by hydraulic fracturing are fairly expensive to
access. Today, American oil reserves tend to lie in shale formations or in deposits under the ocean floor. The higher
production costs become part of higher gasoline prices.¶ Crude oil, not natural gas, is the main substance in gasoline, which powers our cars,
airplanes, and many other forms of transportation—so increased natural gas production does not drive gasoline prices down. ¶ Financial
institutions, such as major banks, speculate on raw materials like oil and natural gas. Companies such as J.P. Morgan and Goldman Sachs provide
financing for the development of oil and natural gas projects—but they also exert influence over the prices of these resources, and thus can keep
them relatively high.¶ Since many
easy-to-access oil reserves have already been tapped, more expensive
technology is required to reach new reserves.¶ “In the good olden days, it was enough for the Saudis to drill a well, and that
well would produce 10,000 barrels of oil per day,” Patzek said, adding that this would be the output of a good well, not every well drilled. “All
you needed to do was sit by the well and sip Coke or whatever they sip… To recover it was either cents or single dollars per barrel. The rest of it
was profit. Today, it’s no longer true. It’s not true for Saudi Arabia. But it’s definitely not true in the Bakken, in the Eagle Ford, or in
the deep Gulf of Mexico. This
is expensive oil.Ӧ According to Patzek, wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico can produce
a significant supply of oil, but drilling in the ocean is risky, and requires expensive platforms , pipelines,
and separation facilities. On land, shale formations such as Montana and North Dakota’s Bakken Shale may contain major oil deposits,
but individual wells tend to produce little oil, so drilling there can require high investments (and many wells).
Offshore drilling is expensive – searching for new wells
PetroChase 12 (Independent oil and gas investments firm specializing in the acquisition and development of drilling sites, PetroChase,
“OIL DRILLING INVESTMENTS- AN EXPENSIVE AND RISKY VENTURE”, http://petrochase.com/blog/2012/04/oil-drilling-investmentsan-expensive-and-risky-venture/)
One of the
most expensive and risky ventures in terms of investment is oil drilling. We can take an example to understand it. Mukluk
Island is a place where drilling process was carried out in 1983. In this project, about 12 oil companies spent
practically $2 billion for oil drilling in the Beaufort Sea, North of Alaska. This oil exploration investment was based on oil
stains discovered by the experts. However, the well was only a dry hole where oil did not exist at all. Thus, oil drilling is not
only expensive but risky as well. According to the Arizona Geological Survey, in Arizona, an oil drilling companies project costs around
$1,000,000 depending upon the location and depth of hole. A rig which can drill the most exploratory holes can
cost from $8,000 to $15,000 per day. This might not be an expensive deal for big companies. However, below mentioned an oil drilling
companies project costs around $1,000,000 depending upon the location and depth of hole, making it expensive:
Costs associated with hiring welders, contractors, engineers, mud loggers, scientists, geologists, and
supervisors Personnel for logging, drilling, casing, cementing and other logistics Settlements with landowner such as for
offshore locations, territorial payments, attorney fees, permission to perform well drilling and various other tax payments Maintenance costs including staffing.
Specialized personnel would work in three shifts to supervise the location 24 hours a day. Amenities for
personnel such as restaurants, motels, transport, food & water. Not only is the drilling process expensive for oil exploration
companies, but the contractors are also costly to hire and the major reasons are mentioned as follows: It is very difficult and
rare to find new oil wells Very low yields from the aged and mature wells Risks associated in the process
of exploration The price of oil & gas is very fluctuating Elevated demand for drilling contractors and oil Drilling tasks are performed by specialized oil
drilling companies such as Diamond offshore drilling Inc., Transocean, and Noble. Generally, these companies lease or rent their drilling rigs to oil & gas companies
Due to the high costs and complicated
drilling processes, oil companies always look for alternative and better techniques so that costs can be reduced
and drilling process can be increased. New technologies and innovations are taking place on a regular basis. However, it might take a few more
such as BP, Royal Dutch, ExxonMobil and Shell. This way, they can earn revenue based on day rates.
years to experience real changes for enhancement in the oil & gas investing industry.
2NC I/L – Generic
Ocean Funding will take money from NASA
Nnamani 11 (Sally, International Development grad student at The New School, 10.31.11,
“Government Should Fund NOAA and Marine Research, Not NASA Space Research”,
http://mic.com/articles/2218/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marine-research-not-nasa-spaceresearch)
In the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the
contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americans remain
concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser priority areas.
Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to NASA, encouraging the
administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological development, and scientific
discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion, $1 billion
less than their requested amount.¶ ¶ This large discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clear-cut example
of the growing concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending. Given that 95% of the
underwater world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years, should the space program
remain a priority?¶ ¶ The last half of the 20th century was marked by the ideological and technological warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet
bloc. The Cold War morphed itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological competition such as the
Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main frontiers where the Cold War was waged. As a result,
accomplishments and developments made in these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received with a strong sense of
national pride. ¶ ¶ However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and technology that will enable us to
explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space exploration has contributed largely to this effort as a result of relentless
government support and a strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and the corporations typically
awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their agendas forward in Washington. ¶ ¶ On the contrary, although
oceans are exploited for economic activities such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation, fisheries, and aquaculture,
oceanic exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S. government. According to
NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP originates in coastal areas, the ocean is
key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the cures to many diseases." Since its potential contribution to human sustainability
stands at equal footing with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to explore the deep-sea frontier. ¶ ¶
Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social activists accusing the agency of wasting resources that
could be used here on earth. Given the daunting issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment, lack of access to health care, a
broken education system, and many others, many
research could be used
believe that the large amount of money poured into space
to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic activities and processes, we
continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters stemming from the ocean. Investing
help discover preventive mechanisms against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills.
in oceanic research
may
NASA will be cut if new, unanticipated programs are funded – empirics prove
Foust 11 (Jeff, Space Politics, Briefs: assigning members and blame, February 22,
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/22/briefs-assigning-members-and-blame/)
Last week the Senate Commerce Committee announced the chairs and ranking members of its subcommittees. To no one’s surprise, Sen. Bill
Nelson (D-FL) will return as chairman of the science and space subcommittee. The committee’s new ranking member
is freshman Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). However, it’s likely that full committee ranking member Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) will
continue to play a major role in any space topics during this Congress. Last week the full House approved an amendment to
its
2011 continuing resolution to transfer nearly $300 million from NASA to a Justice Department community policing
program. The amendment was introduced by a Democrat, but passed thanks to the votes of 70 Republicans,
who joined 158 Republicans to approve the amendment. So what was the reaction of Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL)? He blames the Obama
Administration: “If the White House had argued for NASA among House Democrats, we would have protected NASA from this cut,” he told the
Huntsville Times. Of course, if those 70 Republicans hadn’t voted for it, the amendment wouldn’t have passed regardless of what the Democrats
did, as the GOP is now in the majority, but Brooks offers no explanation why 70 of his fellow House Republicans voted for the amendment.
NASA and the NOAA are funded out of the same committee – empirically trades off
Mervis 10 (Jeff, deputy news editor for Science Magazine, President Obama's Science Spending,
interview with Ira Flatow, February 5, http://www.wbur.org/npr/123410020/president-obamas-sciencespending)
Congress isn't going to go for all of these things . Congress, as you'll talk about later with
NASA, is not going to be happy with that reallocation and savings. And the reason that's important to the rest of the
science budget is because NASA is funded by the same committee that funds the National Science Foundation ,
the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Commerce, which has NOAA and NIST. And so if they have a fixed
amount of money, the more they give to one agency, the less there is for everybody else. So sometimes
Congress makes decisions not because they're opposed to research, but because they have other higher priorities.
But more broadly,
2NC I/L – Oceans
Ocean funding trades off with NASA
Etzioni 14 (Amitai, Professor at George Washington University, Summer 2014, “Final Frontier vs.¶
Fruitful Frontier¶ The Case for Increasing¶ Ocean Exploration”, Issues in Science and Technology, pp. 6574, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)
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 public supports ocean spending over space spending – forces cuts
Lilley 10 (Jonathan Charles, Doctor of Philosophy in Marine Studies, dissertation submitted to the
Faculty of the University of Delaware, "Navigating a Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes
Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources", Summer 2010,
www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
Regarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the government needs to do more, with
72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take priority over space exploration (17%). In terms
of individual action that a person can take, 49% said they would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42% said they would be almost
certain to pick up trash on the beach. Much smaller percentages said they would be pay higher water bills to fund better sewage
treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive ocean- related actions (18%); join an environmental group
(12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding the perceived effectiveness of such actions, 70% thought that recycling
used motor oil would be very effective in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the bead would very
effective.
2NC – Link Magnifier
Single cuts spillover to all of NASA
Achenbach 13 (December, Joel, OMAN TRIBUNE, “Lack of Funds is Nasa’s biggest hurdle”,
http://www.omantribune.com/files/pdfs/2013/DECEMBER/28-12-2013/20131228_OT_07.pdf)
A problem in one part of Nasa can have cascading effects across the agency. That is what happened when
the James Webb Space Telescope was delayed by seven years and ran disasterously over budget. There is no consensus on what the
telescope was supposed to cost – at one point it was projected at about $2.5 billion – but Nasa now puts the price tag at $8.8 billion. The Mars
Science Laboratory mission, which put Curiosity on Mars, also ran a billion dollars over its $1.6 billion budget . These overruns drain
money from other science missions they also make the budget writers nervous.
trusted with flagship-class spacecraft?
They wonder: Can the scientists be
2NC Impact – Warming
NASA’s Climate monitoring systems are key to determining global warming and
water levels
AerospaceTechnology 10 (http://www.aerospace-technology.com/features/feature78185/ “Nasa’s
High-Tech Climate Monitoring” April 6, 2010)
Nasa and climate satellites share a common history. Even as the fledgling organisation was struggling with the early frustrations of its initial
manned space flight programme, a Juno II rocket successfully launched Explorer 7 into low Earth orbit and ushered in the era of satellite
climate monitoring. The date was 13 October 1959 and Nasa was little more than a year old. Fast-forward to the organisation's 50th
anniversary on 29 July 2008 and the Earth-observing constellation had grown to 21-strong. Unsurprisingly, it is not only the numbers that
have changed over the intervening half-century. The climate-monitoring element in that first payload simply consisted of a flat-plate
radiometer to quantify the heat reaching and leaving the Earth. Today, satellites employ multisensor arrays to monitor
everything from glacial ice to the planetary water cycle. However, while the technologies may have
been transformed almost beyond recognition in their sophistication, the logic behind satellite-based
research remains exactly the same – though many would argue that the need for it is now greater than
ever. It is as simple as it is compelling. Before the satellite era, climatologists could only look upward, limiting any attempt to gather data
on the middle or upper atmosphere, and largely restricting world-scale understanding to a compendium of discrete, localised observations.
With satellites, the whole thing went global. A global picture Achieving the kind of worldwide overview required to
meet the needs of increasingly complex climate models inevitably requires cutting-edge technologies
across a wide spectrum of sectors, aside from the obvious aerospace demands implicit in the spacecraft
themselves. The instruments on Nasa's Aqua satellite - part of a huge mission instigated to elucidate
the intricacies of the Earth's water cycle – reads like a checklist of state-of-the-art monitoring devices.
The technology includes atmospheric infrared sounding, advanced microwave sounding and scanning radiometry units, and moderateresolution imaging spectro-radiometry. Aqua and its fellow Earth observation satellites have come a long way since the pioneering days of
Explorer 7. The technology has grown, but then so has the task asked of it. The net result has been to
provide today's climate scientists with access to an unprecedented global picture, replete with levels of detail
that would have been almost unimaginable to the likes of professor Verner Suomi – the meteorologist behind that first flat-plate radiometer.
While Aqua has been examining the inter-relationships of oceanic evaporation, atmospheric water
vapour, clouds, precipitation, soil moisture, ice and snow, other missions have been inexorably adding
to our understanding of Earth's changing climate. From CloudSat and Calipso, for instance, come near-simultaneous 3D
measurements of cloud structure, from Aura, details of the composition, chemistry and dynamics of the atmosphere and from the aptlynamed IceSat, data on the size and thickness of ice sheets. Still more investigate rainfall, wind, ocean flows and solar radiation. If all goes
according to plan, 2010 will add another two satellite and 2013, a third – and all three are set to push the climate monitoring envelope even
further. Aquarius and Glory Currently scheduled for launch on 22 November 2010, Glory will explore the Earth's energy
balance and the effect it has on the climate. Established in a low orbit, the satellite has two main goals.
Firstly, to collect information on "black carbon", and other atmospheric aerosols, in order to
complement existing knowledge of the seasonal variability in their properties. Secondly, it will amass
data on solar irradiance to contribute to studies of long-term climate shift. These tasks are potentially
enormously significant, since they could go a long way to answering question as to whether
temperature increase and climate changes are largely anthropogenic, or merely the consequences of
natural events. Aquarius, also due to launch in 2010, will pioneer the observation of sea surface salinity from space, closing a notable
gap in climatologists' current understanding by gathering more data in two months than has been collected by conventional means over the
last 100 years. Capable of a detection accuracy of 0.2psu – equivalent to a pinch of salt in a gallon of water, according to Nasa – the satellite
will extend the boundaries of our knowledge of oceanic circulation and the global water cycle, enabling more comprehensive climate models
to be developed. The next generation Most of the world's water is contained in the oceans; only 3% is freshwater and two-thirds of that is in
the form of permanent ice. That 1% which is available, however, forms a vitally important component of the Earth's hydrological cycle –
socio-economically as much as bio-climatically – and precipitation represents one of its most critical elements. "The only practical
way to quantify rain, snow and ice fall is to do it from space." It is easy to see why. The world's population has
doubled since 1950 – and water use has tripled as a result. With an estimated one billion people already denied access
to clean potable supplies, and against a backdrop of changing climate and burgeoning demand, the
future availability of freshwater is clearly of massive social importance. It also has ramifications for
virtually every other environmental issue too. Without an accurate measurement of the global
distribution and intensity of precipitation, climate study lacks one of its most crucial factors, yet
quantifying rain, snow and ice fall arguably remains the biggest challenge facing Earth science. The only
practical way to do it is from space. Nasa's global precipitation measurement (GPM) mission, scheduled for launch sometime in 2013, arose
in response. The satellite will carry a conically-scanning radiometer and dual-frequency cross-track scanning radar and provide the
calibration standard for other members of the GPM constellation. The overarching scope of the mission should lead to a
better understanding of the role of precipitation within the global system and help examine the wider
context of natural and human-induced climate change
2NC Impact – Cassini
Cassini key to jumpstart STEM leadership in the US
Vertesi 13 (“Don’t Gut NASA Space Missions”, http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/14/opinion/vertesicassini-mission/, Janet Vertesi is assistant professor of sociology at Princeton University. She has studied
NASA mission teams since 2006.)
As scientists from around the world gathered in San Francisco for the American Geophysical Union meeting, the success stories are pouring in.
On Monday, the Mars Curiosity mission team released a new study showing that the former lake bed in which the Rover landed could once have
supported microbial life. The Cassini mission to Saturn released a spectacular video of mysterious hexagonal clouds whirling over the planet's
pole.¶ But the question on everyone's mind is: Will these missions be allowed to continue? The answer may well be: No. ¶ Next year's NASA
budget is poised to force premature cancellation of either Curiosity or Cassini -- the agency's flagship missions. Funding decisions get made
behind closed doors, but projected figures reduce Cassini's budget in 2014 by almost half, and half again in 2015, making it impossible to fly.
Even funding for analyzing data will be "restructured," according to NASA. ¶ These cuts are not only devastating for scientists; they are also
potentially harmful for our economy, and our leadership in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math).¶ When most
people think of spacecraft, they think of hunks of metal flying or driving around, alone in the far reaches of the solar system. Some are cute and
personable, like the Opportunity Rover or Voyager; some, like Cassini, are less well known. People might also recall the gorgeous photos spread
across the front pages of the New York Times or on the cover of National Geographic. A few might even think of the famous scientists who have
brought these pictures to life, like Carl Sagan, Steve Squyres, or Carolyn Porco. ¶ The robots' stories and adventures captivate us. But what about
the people who created and operate the robots? Behind the scenes, largely invisible to the public, are many of America's best scientists and
engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA centers, and research facilities who work on these missions to make space exploration
possible.¶ The budget cuts will affect America's most experienced and most promising engineers and
researchers. They may have to join the legions of the unemployed. Do we really want to put someone like Bobak Ferdowksi, NASA's famous
"Mohawk Guy," out of a job?¶ Some may think that space engineers can simply move to the private sector. After all,
companies like Space X or Virgin Galactic are looking for talents. But private ventures involve different motives and skills.
And private companies do not fund planetary science and experiments.¶ Moreover, private and public research institutions from
Cornell to Ohio State University rely partly on NASA grants to support their graduate students, post-docs, and other staff in STEM fields.¶ In
other words, NASA funding not only expands the frontiers of our knowledge, it also trains the next generation of STEM
leaders in our country. The budget cuts would deprive our young scientists and engineers the resources to
continue their studies and, in turn, contribute to America's innovation.¶ Seen in perspective, the looming budget adjustment
along with all the cuts in recent years sentences America's planetary exploration program to death by starvation .¶ Cassini, for one, is
already operating on a shoestring. And NASA has put plans for future missions to the outer solar system on ice, despite efforts by the
planetary community to plan cost-effective and exciting opportunities.¶ The continuous gutting of NASA and its planetary science programs
should outrage all Americans. If we end the Cassini or the Curiosity mission, it would be a crisis not just for science but for
America's leadership in STEM.¶ At a time when our math and science students are getting left behind, and the public is looking to our
high tech and scientific sectors to power innovation and economic growth, we should invest in our sciences and continue to inspire the next
generation. Let's make sure our current best and brightest working on the cutting edge don't get the pink slip.
Leadership in this area is critical to science diplomacy which solves wars, the
economy, and the environment
Federoff 8 (Nina, Sec of State, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm)
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Ehlers, and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss
science diplomacy at the U.S. Department of State. The U.S. is recognized globally for its leadership in science
and
technology. Our scientific strength is both a tool of ``soft power''--part of our strategic diplomatic arsenal--and a
basis for creating partnerships with countries as they move beyond basic economic and social development. Science diplomacy
is a central element of the Secretary's transformational diplomacy initiative, because science and technology are essential to
achieving stability and strengthening failed and fragile states. S&T advances have immediate and
enormous influence on national and global economies, and thus on the international relations between societies. Nation
states, nongovernmental organizations, and multinational corporations are largely shaped by their expertise in and access to intellectual and
physical capital in science, technology, and engineering. Even as S&T advances of our modern era provide opportunities for economic
prosperity, some also challenge the relative position of countries in the world order, and influence our social institutions and principles.
America must remain at the forefront of this new world by maintaining its technological edge, and leading the way
internationally through science diplomacy and engagement.
The Public Diplomacy Role of Science
Science by its
nature facilitates diplomacy because it strengthens political relationships, embodies powerful ideals, and creates opportunities for all. The
global scientific community embraces principles Americans cherish: transparency, meritocracy,
accountability, the objective evaluation of evidence, and broad and frequently democratic participation. Science is inherently
democratic, respecting evidence and truth above all. Science is also a common global language, able to bridge deep political and religious
divides. Scientists share a common language. Scientific interactions serve to keep open lines of communication and cultural understanding.
As scientists everywhere have a common evidentiary external reference system, members of
ideologically divergent societies can use the common language of science to cooperatively address both domestic and
the increasingly trans-national and global problems confronting humanity in the 21st century. There is a growing recognition
that science and technology will increasingly drive the successful economies of the 21st century. Science and
technology provide an immeasurable benefit to the U.S. by bringing scientists and students here, especially from developing countries,
where they see democracy in action, make friends in the international scientific community, become familiar with American technology,
and contribute to the U.S. and global economy. For example, in 2005, over 50 percent of physical science and engineering
graduate students and postdoctoral researchers trained in the U.S. have been foreign nationals. Moreover, many foreign-born scientists who
were educated and have worked in the U.S. eventually progress in their careers to hold influential positions in ministries and institutions
both in this country and in their home countries. They also contribute to U.S. scientific and technologic development: According to the
National Science Board's 2008 Science and Engineering Indicators, 47 percent of full-time doctoral science and engineering faculty in U.S.
research institutions were foreign-born. Finally, some types of science--particularly those that address the grand challenges in science and
technology--are inherently international in scope and collaborative by necessity. The ITER Project, an international fusion research and
development collaboration, is a product of the thaw in superpower relations between Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S.
President Ronald Reagan. This reactor will harness the power of nuclear fusion as a possible new and viable energy source by bringing a
star to Earth. ITER serves as a symbol of international scientific cooperation among key scientific leaders in the developed and developing
world--Japan, Korea, China, E.U., India, Russia, and United States--representing 70 percent of the world's current population. The recent
elimination of funding for FY08 U.S. contributions to the ITER project comes at an inopportune time as the Agreement on the
Establishment of the ITER International Fusion Energy Organization for the Joint Implementation of the ITER Project had entered into force
only on October 2007. The elimination of the promised U.S. contribution drew our allies to question our
commitment and credibility in international cooperative ventures. More problematically, it jeopardizes a
platform for reaffirming U.S. relations with key states. It should be noted that even at the height of the cold war, the
United States used science diplomacy as a means to maintain communications and avoid misunderstanding
between the world's two nuclear powers--the Soviet Union and the United States. In a complex multi-polar world,
relations are more challenging, the threats perhaps greater, and the need for engagement more
paramount. Using Science Diplomacy to Achieve National Security Objectives The welfare and stability of countries
and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal
factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to
provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world
faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies,
environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can
undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries,
becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific
challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions
necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common
and
goals. We must increasingly harness the power of
American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private
sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.
2NC A2 No Impact to Cuts
Losing funding would sabotage NASA missions to deep space
Ghose 13 (Tia, LiveScience Staff, 04.11.13, “NASA Budget Cutbacks Would Cripple Planetary
Science, Critics Say“,http://www.space.com/20622-nasa-budget-planetary-science-2014.html)
Proposed cuts included in NASA's 2014 budget request would sabotage a mission to Europa, an icy moon of
Jupiter that could support life, scientists say.¶ The Obama administration released its 2014 budget proposal Wednesday (April 10).
While the budget would set aside $17.7 billion for NASA, it would cut the agency's previous $1.5 billion budget for the planetary science
division by $200 million, scientists said in a live webcast sponsored by the Planetary Society, an organization founded by scientist Carl Sagan to
promote solar-system exploration.¶ "We're a little disappointed that planetary science didn't get a little better shake," said Bill Nye, CEO of the
society and popularly known as television’s "Bill Nye the Science Guy." [NASA's 2014 Space Goals Explained in Pictures]¶ The new budget
does not follow the recommendations of the National Research Council's Planetary Science Decadal Survey, a 410-page report that surveyed
dozens of planetary scientists to identify the top priorities for the field over the next decade, Nye said.¶ "This very-well-thought-out, strongly
supported list of suggestions has not really been embraced — or the better word would be 'ignored,'" Nye said.¶ Europa, a mysterious
moon of Jupiter, has a churning ocean locked beneath its icy surface, making it one of the best potential
sources of extraterrestrial life in the solar system.¶ But the new budget doesn't include any money to
explore Europa's ice-covered ocean.¶ The budget does set aside funds to identify asteroids that could threaten Earth and to bring
back samples from an asteroid, said Bill Adkins, a consultant for the society. ¶ The administration's budget also includes funding to send a rover,
much like the Curiosity rover, to Mars in 2020.¶ However, the budget does not set aside funds to take rocks back from the
planet to study them on Earth, Adkins said.¶ "We want to bring back a piece of Mars," Adkins said. "Here on
Earth, we have physically much larger instruments — much higher-power instruments than we're able to
put on even our very best rovers."¶ The budgetary picture could get better, as Congress still has the option to amend the 2014 budget
request to include funding for Europa and other planetary priorities, Adkins noted. ¶ But it could also get worse. The proposed budget assumes
that Congress and the president will end the sequester prior to the start of the 2014 budget cycle. If that doesn’t happen, more cuts could be
triggered, Adkins said.
2NC A2 Cuts Inev
House bill will restore money taken from NASA into the 2015 budget – Planetary
Society campaign has raised awareness
Plait 14 (Phil, Slate astronomer, 06.05.14, “The House Passes FY 2015 NASA Budget¶ “,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/06/05/nasa_budget_2015_house_bill_restores_cut_fund
ing.html)
What’s good about the House budget is that it puts back in a lot of money the White House took out, for reasons
that are still somewhat mysterious, including devastating cuts to planetary exploration requested by the president. This
has been an ongoing battle, and I really wish the White House would stop screwing around trying to cut one of NASA’s most
successful and highly visible programs! Happily, a campaign run by the Planetary Society has been very
helpful in raising awareness in Congress over the need for planetary missions.¶ The bill specifically outlays $100
million for the development of a mission to the icy moon Europa, which is simply fantastic. It’ll cost a lot more than that
in total, but that’s a darn good first step. Europa is a very, very desirable target for an outer planets mission,
since it has a vast ocean of liquid water under its icy surface. What treasures await beneath the surface for us to discover?¶
Interestingly, the House budget restores funding for SOFIA, an infrared telescope flown on an airplane, money
that had been inexplicably taken away by the White House budget. The report on the bill is pretty clear about this: ¶ The Committee does
not accept NASA’s request to terminate support for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a
project that is currently producing good science and has not been proposed for termination by NASA’s internal or external scientific review
boards. Instead, the recommendation provides $70,000,000 for SOFIA, which should be sufficient to support
the aircraft’s fixed costs (flight crews, required maintenance, etc.) as well as a base level of scientific
observations.¶ That’s pretty cool. Nice timing, too, since NASA is testing a new instrument for SOFIA that will
improve its ability to take spectra and investigate all manners of celestial objects.¶ Speaking of infrared telescopes,
I didn't see anything specific about Spitzer, which is in danger of being canceled. Hopefully I'll be hearing more about that soon.¶ I'm happy to
see an additional $15 million toward education and public outreach in the budget, which also had been cut
by the White House. That whole thing from the President was a total mess, bordering on lunacy; instead of doing education through the
various missions, as had been done for years, the White House wanted to combine it all and outsource it to other groups. That would have been
extremely harmful to NASA's E/PO effort, losing many years of wisdom and experience gathered by many dozens of people. I'm glad money
has been restored to this.
Aff Answers
Generic
Cuts won’t kill programs – NASA will make the budget revisions operable
Bodzash 11 (Dennis, writer @ Space News Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/space-news-innational/last-ditch-effort-to-avoid-government-shutdown-involves-nasa-cuts)
Ever since the space race ended with Apollo 11, NASA
has found itself on the chopping block as only science, not national
been at stake. Since NASA's budget (as a part of the total federal budget) peaked in the mid 1960s, NASA has been operating
under less and less money relative to the government as a whole. However, even as its relative budget has shrank,
NASA has always found ways to probe the mysteries of the cosmos. No doubt, regardless of what the next
government spending bill offers, NASA will continue on its quest.
pride, has
No tradeoff – space projects can be done cheaper and oceans outweigh
Etzioni 12 (Amitai, professor of international relations and director of the Institute for Communitarian
Policy Studies at George Washington University, Mars can wait. Oceans can't, August 17,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/etzioni-space-oceans/)
Actually, there
are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to
explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly, and to grant much higher priority to other
scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular. The main costs of space exploration
arise from the fact that we are set on sending humans, rather than robots. The reasons such efforts drive up the costs
include: A human needs a return ticket, while a robot can go one way. Space vehicles for humans must be made safe, while we can risk a bunch
of robots without losing sleep. Robots are much easier to feed, experience little trouble when subject to prolonged weightlessness, and are much
easier to shield from radiation. And they can do most tasks humans can. British astronomer royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that the practical
case (for manned flights) gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization. It's hard to see any particular reason or
purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg calls manned
missions "an incredible waste of money" and argues that "for the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on
Mars we could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars." The main argument for using humans is a
public relations one. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it in Foreign Affairs, "China's latest space proclamations could conceivably produce
another 'Sputnik moment' for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts." Also,
astronauts are said to inspire our youth to become scientists and explorers. However, it is far from established that we cannot
achieve the same effects by making other R&D projects our main priority. Take the oceans, about which
we know much less than the dark side of the moon. Ninety percent of the ocean floor has not even been
charted, and while we have been to the moon, the technology to explore the ocean's floors is still being developed. For example, a permanent
partially-submerged sea exploration station, called the SeaOrbiter, is currently in development. The oceans play a major role in
controlling our climate. But we have not learned yet how to use them to cool us off rather than contribute
to our overheating. Ocean organisms are said to hold the promise of cures for an array of diseases. An
examination of the unique eyes of skate (ray fish) led to advances in combating blindness, the horseshoe crab was crucial in developing a test for
bacterial contamination, and sea urchins helped in the development of test-tube fertilization. The toadfish's ability to regenerate its central
nervous system is of much interest to neuroscientists. A recent Japanese study concluded that the drug eribulin, which was derived from sea
sponges, is effective in combating breast, colon, and urinary cancer. Given the looming crisis of water scarcity, we badly
need more efficient and less costly methods to desalinate ocean water. By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to
suffer from severe water scarcity, with that number jumping to 3.9 billion by 2050—well over a third of the entire global population. If the
oceans do not make your heart go pitter-patter, how about engineering a bacteria that eats carbon dioxide -- and thus helps protect the world from
overheating -- AND excretes fuel which will allow us to drive our cars and machines, without oil? I cannot find any evidence that people young
or old, Americans or citizens of other nations, would be less impressed or less inspired with such a breakthrough than with one more set of photos
of a far away galaxy or a whole Milky Way full of stars. Space enthusiasts claim that space exploration has generated
major spinoffs for our life right here on Earth. Tyson quotes President Obama suggesting that the Apollo mission "produced
technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test for hazardous gases; energy-saving building
materials; and fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers," and adds a few more innovations to the list: "digital imaging, implantable
pacemakers, collision-avoidance systems on aircraft, precision LASIK eye surgery, and global positioning satellites." Of course, the space
environment is radically different from the one on Earth. Materials and technologies that are suited for a vacuum, zero gravity, and extreme cold
and heat are not the ones we typically can use on Earth. Opinion: Gingrich's moon colony lost in the laughter Elias Carayannis, professor of
Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at The George Washington University, notes "government agencies -- particularly
those such as the National Space and Aeronautics Administration that are continually pressured to justify their activities -- tout
the spin-off
value of their investments in sometimes quite extravagant claims." Products such as Velcro, Tang, and
Teflon that are often cited as spinoffs of space technology did not actually result from the space program.
Space promoters tell us, once every few months, that there are signs that there might be or has been water on one
of the planets that might make "life" possible. I wonder if some of those who hear these reports interpret them to mean that we
expect to find a civilization out there, one that we could ally with, say against the Chinese. What scientists are really talking about
is organic material, the kind found in any compost -- not a reason to spend billions of dollars of public
funds.
Oceans are horribly underfunded now and critical – space funding is sufficient
Conathan 13 (Michael, Center for American Progress, Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean
Spending, June 20, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/06/20/space-exploration-dollarsdwarf-ocean-spending/)
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.
UQ
NASA’s budget has been declining for decades – tons of missions will be cancelled
Foust 14 (Jeff, National Geographic, 05.30.14, “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-fundingexploration/)
Funding for NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003 and still producing good science, may be cut.¶ Alien worlds
and the search for extraterrestrial life recently took center stage on Capitol Hill, a break from standard political fare in Washington D.C. (Related:
"Future of Spaceflight.")¶ "Finding other sentient life in the universe would be the most significant discovery in human history," began Lamar
Smith, a Republican from Texas who's chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, at the May 21 astrobiology
hearing.¶ "The unknown and unexplored areas of space spark human curiosity," he went on, applauding recent discoveries such as the most Earthlike world orbiting a nearby star discovered so far by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope. ¶ 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 .
Mars mission would never happen with current budget – unreasonable and
uncertain
Kramer 14 (Miriam, Space Staff, 01.14.14, “Manned Mission to Mars By 2030s Is Really Possible,
Experts Say¶ “,¶ http://www.space.com/24268-manned-mars-mission-nasa-feasibility.html)
While Carberry said that it is possible to launch a manned mission to Mars by the 2030s under pre-sequestration
budget levels, a NASA-led human mission to Mars will probably never launch under current budgetary
constraints, Carberry said.¶ "We're not far off from what we need," Carberry said. "We just need to get back into a reasonable
budget, which we're not in right now."¶ President Barack Obama requested about $17.7 billion for NASA during his
2013 budget proposal, $59 million less than what the space agency received in 2012.¶ "[NASA] funds are
divided between various missions, directorates and centers," Carberry said via email. "Unless there was a MAJOR
restructuring, it would be hard to accomplish a NASA-led Mars mission [under the current budget]. That said, major
disruptive technology gains could always occur that could make it viable — we just can't count on that happening."
Cuts Inevitable
2015 congress Proposed budget for NASA cuts budget for Astrophysics, SOFIA,
Earth Science. Cuts on earth science link to aff’s environmental impacts
Plait ’14 (astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death from the Skies.
“Another Year, Another Set of Bizarre Cuts to NASA's Budget”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/03/05/nasa_budget_2015_more_cuts_more_politics.ht
ml)
Earth Science: cut by $56 million (given that so many in Congress are climate change deniers who want to cut
Earth-observing missions, I think this may be a mistake). Astrophysics: cut by $61 million (including mothballing
the wonderful SOFIA aircraft unless a German partner can pony up the cash; see page 15 of the report). Planetary
Science: cut by $65 million. That last one is almost a victory, given how the White House has tried to eviscerate planetary exploration over the
past few years. But don’t be fooled; these cuts would hurt. A lot. (Note added after I wrote this article but before it was posted:
Casey Dreier at The Planetary Society has more on this situation.) But the one that really gets me, the one that is appalling, is the
cut to
Education: It will see a devastating reduction in funding of nearly $28 million, dropping to $89 million if
this budget is passed as is. That’s nearly a 24 percent drop.This is madness. I can’t brand it any other way. One of
NASA’s shining triumphs is public advocacy, from creating educational products to garnering public
interest in the overall mission of exploring the Universe. This cut seems to align with the bizarre notion of taking the
educational efforts away from NASA and giving it to outside museums and the Department of Education. These are excellent groups, to be sure,
but there is a wealth of experience in NASA’s Education and Public Outreach groups, hard-won over the past decade or so. I was involved with
that, so I have first-hand knowledge; mission-specific E/PO with cooperation between those missions was working pretty well. There’s no need to
change this and to my knowledge no one in NASA asked for it. It was simply decided from above. I think that’s a big mistake.
No Tradeoff
Funding’s not an issue – no tradeoff between ocean and space
Shiro 13 (Brian, MS in Space Studies from University of North Dakota, 4 years of employment at
NOAA, 09.28.13, “splashdown 2013: space vs. ocean”,
http://www.astronautforhire.com/2013/09/splashdown-2013-space-vs-ocean.html)
As someone who works for NOAA and collaborates routinely with NASA, I have a foot in both worlds. My perspective
is that they are synergistic. There is more than enough exploration capital to spread around, so
choosing between the two is a false dichotomy . Plus, the technologies and strategies developed in one
setting often translate well to the other. We can learn to live in space by tackling the challenge of living underwater, for example. Of
course, this presumes that manned undersea exploration isn't dead, as evidenced by the recent re-opening of the re-opening of the Aquarius Reef
Base. I think the potential benefits of exploring the ocean are great enough that there will always be a driver to
do so, no matter how far we push the frontier beyond Earth.
No tradeoff – zero-sum mindset is just a historical quirk, not reality
Mangu-Ward 13 (Katherine, Reason magazine, New America Foundation, 09.04.13, “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_fr
ontier.html)
Is Hawkes right? Should we all be crawling back into the seas from which we came? Ocean exploration is certainly the underdog, so to
speak, in the sea vs. space face-off. There’s no doubt that the general public considers space the sexier realm. The occasional James Cameron joint
aside, there’s much more cultural celebration of space travel, exploration, and colonization than there is of equivalent underwater adventures. In a celebrity death
match between Captain Kirk and Jacques Cousteau, Kirk is going to kick butt every time. ¶ In fact, the
rivalry can feel a bit lopsided—the chess club
jocks aren’t losing much sleep over the price of
pawns and cheerleaders rarely turn out for chess tournaments. But somehow the debate rages on in dorm rooms, congressional
committee rooms, and Internet chat rooms. ¶ Damp ocean boosters often aim to borrow from the rocket-fueled glamour of
space. Submersible entrepreneur Marin Beck talks a big game when he says, “We can go to Mars, but the deep ocean really is our final frontier,” but he giggles
may consider the football program a competitor for funds and attention, but the
when a reporter calls him the “Elon Musk of the deep sea,” an allusion to the founder of the for-profit company Space X who is rumored to be the real-life model for
Iron Man’s Tony Stark.¶ Even Hawkes admits that he “grew up dreaming of aircraft”—though he means planes, not spaceships—but “then I got to look at this subsea
stuff and I saw this is where aviation was all those years ago. The whole field was completely backwards, and that’s why I jumped in.”¶ 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 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—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 mindset 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.
A2 Space Colonization
Mars colonization isn’t feasible – radiation, space sickness, sustainability
Lemind 14 (Anna, University of Piraeus, 02.20.14, “The Other Side of Mars Colonization: Potential
Dangers of the Red Planet”, http://www.learning-mind.com/the-other-side-of-mars-colonizationpotential-dangers-of-the-red-planet/#Ay8spY2O4ifCbzcy.99)
As the prospect of a permanent colony on Mars is getting closer with every new press release from the Mars One project, it probably makes sense
to remember that any person who will move permanently to Mars will most likely die untimely and painful
death.¶ Here are some things that are most likely to cause it (all kinds of technical problems are excluded from consideration):¶ First of all, the
Mars colonists will be subjected to radiation before having set foot on the threshold of their new home.
Technically, the radiation level during the trip from Earth to Mars does not exceed the capacity of the human body, but one should remember that
the Sun is a huge unpredictable radioactive destructive mass.¶ Just one solar flare during the trip to Mars will send a
damage any shielding that can be created today. In fact, it will ‘roast’ any
creature that is not protected by the planetary magnetic fields. In 2022, just a couple of years before the planned start of the
expedition, the Sun will be at the peak of its 11-year cycle.¶ Then, on the surface of Mars, the colonists would have
to find a way to deal with a reduced gravitational field of the planet. Since Mars has only a third of the earth’s gravity,
this factor can be fatal in the long term perspective. All aspects of our biological structure – from heart rate to the
strength of our bones – are related to gravity.¶ As soon as this force is removed, we begin to lose bone marrow and
our heart and vestibular system start to malfunction. It is the reason why the astronauts do not stay on the ISS for longer than
necessary. The effects of the so-called “space sickness” on Mars will be reduced compared to the microgravity of outer space, but in
the long run they will likely lead to the terminal health problems.¶ And finally, there is a problem of self-sustaining
life on the Red Planet. Since the supply missions to Mars will cost billions of dollars, they will be probably delayed if the colonists
stream of high-energy particles that will
suddenly run out of something important, like the air, water or food.¶ Of course, each colony on Mars is planned as a self-sustaining system.
However, just one serious crop failure will lead to the lack of oxygen, which will be produced by plants, and
will raise the question of survival of the colonists.
A2 Cassini
Cassini cuts inevitable
Earth Space News 13 (NASA budget cuts could end Cassini, Curiosity missions, December 30,
http://earthspacenews.com/nasa-budget-cuts-end-cassini-curiosity-missions/)
Next year’s NASA budget is poised to force premature cancellation of both Curiosity and Cassini – the agency’s flagship missions. The
funding for the two programs will be will be reduced by 50 percent in 2014 and then half again in 2015.
Even funding for analyzing data will be “restructured”. Cassini is an unmanned spacecraft sent to study planet Saturn with a
yearly allocation of $60 million while the Curiosity Mars rover has a yearly allocation of $50 million. By
2015, the missions will have a $15 million and $12 million allocation respectively. Continuing the
missions will be impossible with such amounts. Congress began forcing NASA to tighten its belt in 2010 and then the sequester
squeezed it even further. The agency is now getting some $2 billion less than in 2009. In July, the Congress approved a fiscal year
2014 budget for NASA worth $16.6 billion and asked the space agency to set new goals which include
cutting allocations on planetary science programs and putting more on Earth programs. “I think it would be the height of folly
to terminate such a profoundly successful mission when we’re not done yet,” said Carolyn Porco, a planetary scientist at the Space Science
Institute in Boulder, Colo., and the leader of the imaging team for Cassini.
Cassini’s extended mission won’t be decided until 2015
Kane 13 (Van Kane has followed planetary exploration since he opened his newspaper in 1976,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/van-kane/20130410-proposed-nasa-planetary-sciencebudget.html, First Analysis: the NASA Planetary Science Budget for 2014, THE PLANETARY
SOCIETY)
As mentioned above, the proposed budget appears to fully fund all operating missions through the end of their currently approved missions.
Where a spacecraft is expected to still be operational at the end of the currently approved funding, the document states that future mission
extensions can be funded if approved by NASA’s Senior Review process. (This is a review by senior scientists to evaluate and rank the value of
continued mission operations and funding.) ¶ For the Mars program, the budget proposal shows the operating budget for FY14 for each mission,
and then has a large (>$80M per year) line item to support extended mission after that. Other programs do not have this type of funding bucket to
pull from for extended missions. This may be particularly important for the Cassini mission, where the Outer Planets budget
drops from a projected $79M (FY14) to around $25M by FY16. ¶ Per the budget documents, “The [Cassini] Solstice mission [now funded]
will continue to operate and conduct data analysis through September 2015, at which time it will undergo
competitive Senior Review with all other PSD operating missions. Pending successful Senior Review in 2015, the
mission will conclude in 2018, after another 155 revolutions around the planet, 54 flybys of Titan, and 11 flybys of Enceladus.” However, if
operations are to be funded from 2015 to 2018, NASA will need to find new funds to support Cassini.