KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
1NC Shell – NASA Prevents Development
Government-funded organizations by nature are incapable of meaningful development;
privatization is the only alternative.
Garmong 05
[Robert Garmong, Ph.D in philosophy, 22 July 2005, Ayn Rand Institute, “Private Space
Exploration,” http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/4327-privatize-spaceexploration.html]
As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately
funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever
the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government. Two years
ago, a Bush Administration panel on
space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in
the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears
unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America's
expensive space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space
program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold
innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking
and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily
place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's
history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined
goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing special interest
groups, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical
need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply
by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles.
But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The
result, as great a technical
achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous
vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to
be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the
overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A
private industry could have
fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.
1
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
1NC Shell – NASA Prevents Development
AND NASA is the only thing private organizations from revolutionizing the space industry
as they did aviation.
McCullagh 07
[Declan McCullagh, CNET News, 3 October 2007, "Do we need NASA?," news.cnet.com/Dowe-need-NASA/2009-11397_3-6211308.html]
Compare the rapid progress in aviation with America's experience in space travel. Fifty years
after Sputnik 1's launch in October 1957, mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a
moon, at that), the space shuttle has at best a 1-in-50 chance of disaster upon each launch, and a
completed space station is still a few years out. Since the last moon landing 35 years ago,
in fact, mankind has not ventured beyond low Earth orbit again. The difference? Critics say it's
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Aviation's youth and adolescence were marked by
entrepreneurs and frenetic commercial activity: Lindbergh's trans-Atlantic prize money was put up by a
New York hotel owner, and revenue from the airlines funded the development of the famous DC-3. The federal government aided
aviation by paying private pilots to deliver air mail. Space,
by contrast, until recently has remained the
domain of NASA. Burt Rutan, the aerospace engineer famous for building a suborbital rocket plane that won the Ansari X
Prize, believes NASA is crowding out private efforts. "Taxpayer-funded NASA should only
fund research and not development," Rutan said during a recent panel discussion at the California Institute of
Technology. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a manned spacecraft,
you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by saying), 'No, you
can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology.'" Rutan and his fellow pilots,
venture capitalists and entrepreneurs have undertaken a formidable task: To demonstrate to the public that space travel need
not be synonymous with government programs. In fact, many of them say NASA has become
more of a hindrance than a help.
2
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
1NC Shell – CP Text
Thus the Counterplan:
The US Federal Government should dismantle the space program of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration and charge private corporations with
[purpose of plan].
3
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
1NC Shell – Solvency
Counterplan solves – dismantling NASA ensures improved cost, safety, and efficiency in
space development.
Villacampa 06
[Alexander Villacampa, economics at Univesity of Florida, 20 September 2006, "NASA: Exemplary of Government Waste,"
www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html]
The solution the problem of NASA overspending and endless mishaps is, like all
government programs, privatization. If the citizenry, through the market process, find it profitable to invest and
consume products that are tied to space exploration, so be it. In such a scenario no individual is forced to pay for
products that continuously fail to meet their expectations. In addition, private companies
that take on the task of space exploration will be doing so at a profit and trying to minimize cost. This is
significantly different from the wasteful practices of government and public sector
programs. Whenever costs outweigh profits, precious resources have been wasted in the production of that good or service. In the
private sector, entrepreneurs quite literally pay the price for having misused resources and the costs will cut into the entrepreneur’s
income. If this occurs, either changes are to be made in order to cut costs or the entrepreneur will need to shut down the business. When
public sector industries waste resources, often times no direct harm is done to their ability to continue the misuse of funding. Any
punishment comes down from the legislature and usually comes with multi-millions of dollars in addition funding. It is a time-proven
fact that when a private sector company fails, they go out of business yet if a public sector industry fails, they get additional funding.
In order to save the taxpayer from having to pay the increasing costs of a hopeless
space exploration program, simply disband NASA and allow the market to decide if
such practices are needed in society. If the market decides that these services are in fact desired then it will take
hold of these projects while trying to reduce the use of valuable resources. This is becoming evident in the success of
SpaceShipOne’s flight in 2004. SpaceShipOne showed the world that the market can do
marvelously what NASA has, time and time again, continuously failed to accomplish . The
success of SpaceShipOne also spurred the creation of another private space exploration program, Virgin Galactic, that intends to send
private individuals into space. Currently, the price of travel into space with Virgin Galactic is $200,000. That is right, $200,000. Not
only is Virgin not doing this at a cost (if they were it would quickly fail) but they are allowing private individuals to take part in an
experience that was only granted to government scientists. In
addition, the risk of these spacecrafts will, in
time, diminish as corporations feel an increasing need to secure their customers or
else suffer heavy losses. Safety is a hefty concern for individuals who are risking their lives and money in order to partake
in an emerging industry. Space shuttles Columbia and Challenger illustrate that even though NASA engineers might only want the best
for its passengers, safety has not been such a prime concern as to prevent any of these tragic moments from occurring. In summation,
in order to roll back the growing tide of government spending, the most wasteful
programs must be cut first. What is needed from such public sector failures as NASA
is not increased funding and wasteful behavior but full privatization. Only when this
occurs will resources be used efficiently, will there be increased emphasis on
consumer safety on extraterrestrial flights, and an end to the coercive sequestering of
funds from taxpayers to prop up a failed program. It is time to put the industry of
space exploration to the ultimate test: that of the market economy. The market, not the
government, will be the true decider as to the existence of such an industry. It seems that the market is declaring that space exploration
can be not only profitable but safe. If this is so, then so be it; it might be possible one day for all citizens to afford flights into the far
reaches of space. What is important is to allow consumers, not bureaucrats, to decide where precious resources should go. It
is time
to end the government finance of wasteful public space exploration and to forevermore
dismantle NASA.
4
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
1NC Shell – Solvency
AND counterplan solves for the future of space exploration.
Cleavelin 1/21
[Cade Cleavelin, 21 January 2011, “In The Private Sector, Space Will Pay For Itself”,
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2011/1/21/private-sector-space-will-pay-itself/)
Private firms, headed by savvy and capable business leaders, will be able to make space flight profitable in
ways NASA cannot. Space flight will become a stable and viable industry, and therefore
research and space exploration will progress faster than it would in the hands of one
government entity. Granting private corporations the opportunity to continue down the path
NASA has carved and pursue new opportunities of development will make space flight a more
secure undertaking. Space flight and exploration will never take off like it should if
the work is limited to one government entity that is ever strapped for cash. It’s not as if
privatizing space flight will suddenly allow conniving rocket tycoons to monopolize scientific exploration. Some of the most brilliant
people in their fields work in private industry. Companies like SpaceX employ intelligent individuals, with the same degrees as NASA
engineers, who know what they’re doing in designing rockets and planning missions. One of the most optimistic outcomes of privatizing
space flight is that rocket engineers will finally earn salaries befitting their education level and performance.
5
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – Privatization = SQ
Already a trend towards privatization – Obama proposes to address NASA’s shortcomings
and allow a new age of space exploration.
Hartman 10
[Joshua T. Hartman, CSIS Senior Associate, senior advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, director
of the Space and Intelligence Office, CSIS, 22 February 2010, "NASA's Future," csis.org/publication/nasa-future]
President Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget for NASA, submitted to Congress, charts a new
path. It makes the bold decision to cancel Constellation and rely on the private sector for future
transportation to space. This administration’s budget puts an emphasis on future capabilities: a push
toward developmental and cutting-edge science and technology for human and robotic
exploration, a dedication to fully leveraging the potential of the International Space
Station through 2020, and a renewed focus on earth and space sciences. Some suggest the
president is pushing NASA toward transformation with this budget. The success of his vision
for NASA will be measured, as always, in its acceptance and implementation. The most significant move in this vision has attracted
much attention. The debate over the cancellation of Constellation began even before the budget was released and has only gotten more
fever pitched since. Critics maintain that cancelling Constellation will cause great job loss, force skilled workers out of the aerospace
industry entirely, and put the United States years behind in pushing further into the frontier of space. On the other hand, proponents
argue that turning
toward commercial spaceflight will spur new growth, innovation, and
a sustainable industrial base that will ensure success well into the future. The final judgment
will depend greatly on NASA’s ability to manage the transition and industry’s ability to perform against NASA’s intent. Announced the
day after the budget release, implementation of this vision has already begun . Using stimulus money, NASA
jump-started industry with investments in future science, technology, and exploration initiatives. Specific focus has been on earth
sciences, astrophysics, aeronautic research, and exploration activities designed to stimulate greater industrial base and entrepreneurial
efforts in the future.
6
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – NASA Prevents Development
AND NASA crowds out the inexpensive private development of space.
Hudgins 98
[Edward L. Hudgins, formerly the director of regulatory studies for the CATO Institute, 26
January 1998, Baltimore Sun, "Time to Privatize NASA,"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960]
In 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led interagency working group considered the
feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could
deliver a permanent manned moon base. When asked whether such a base was
realistic, private-sector representatives answered yes -- but only if NASA wasn't
involved. That plan was quickly scuttled. Each shuttle carries a 17-story external fuel tank 98 percent of the distance into orbit
before dropping it into the ocean; NASA could easily -- and with little additional cost -- have promoted private
space enterprise by putting those fuel tanks into orbit. With nearly 90 shuttle flights to date, platforms -- with a total of 27
acres of interior space -- could be in orbit today. These could be homesteaded by the private sector for hospitals to study a weightless
Mr. Glenn or for any other use one could dream of. But
then a $100 billion government station would be
unnecessary. As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be
made toward inexpensive manned space travel. The lesson of Mr. Glenn's second flight is that space
enthusiasts ignore economics at their peril.
7
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – NASA => Fiscal Problems
NASA consistently sacrifices efficiency and financial security to ensure its monopoly on the
aerospace industry.
Hudgins 98
[Edward L. Hudgins, formerly the director of regulatory studies for the CATO Institute, 26
January 1998, Baltimore Sun, "Time to Privatize NASA,"
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5960]
The government has had many opportunities to turn over civilian space activities to
the private sector. In the 1970s, American Rocket Co. was one of the private enterprises that
wanted to sell launch services to NASA and private businesses. But NASA was moving from science to
freight hauling, and planned to monopolize government payloads on the shuttle and subsidize
launches of private cargo as well. The agency thus turned down American Rocket. In the late 1980s, Space
Industries of Houston offered, for no more than $750 million, to launch a mission that could carry
government and other payloads at least a decade before NASA's station went into operation.
(NASA's station currently comes with a price tag of nearly $100 billion for development, construction and
operations.) NASA, not wishing to create its own competition, declined Space Industries'
offer.
8
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – NASA => Fiscal Problems
NASA’s space program is only a drain on US funds and a political ploy – private
corporations are less expensive and more efficient.
DeHaven 10
[Tad DeHaven, budget analyst on federal and state budget issues, Cato Institute, “Can NASA
Compete with SpaceX?,” http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/can-nasa-compete-withspacex]
NASA administrator Charles Bolden says that his “foremost” mission is to improve relations with the Muslim world. This headscratching statement is made more bizarre by Bolden’s claim that he received this instruction from the president himself. From
FoxNews.com: When I became the NASA administrator – or before I became the NASA administrator – he charged me with three
things. One was he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math, he wanted me to expand our international
relationships, and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with
dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering,’ Bolden said
we spending $18 billion a year of taxpayer money on the space agency
simply to generate warm and fuzzy feelings? Well, that’s Obama’s view apparently. But in Congress, the
in the interview. Are
purpose of blowing taxpayer money on NASA is to protect government jobs in their districts. Members are fighting the Obama
administration’s attempt to cancel NASA’s Constellation program. An independent panel called the over-budget, behind-schedule
program “the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives.” Many of these policymakers have
been critical of the president’s attempt to create jobs by spending loads of taxpayer money. But according to Constellation supporter
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), “There are a lot of government programs that need to be cut…But when it comes to our defense and our
space industry, I see them in a different category.” In other words, Aderholt is
more concerned with buying
special interest support than national need. The president wants to use NASA as a
diplomacy tool. Congress wants to use it to secure government jobs in their district on
the taxpayer dime. In this era of massive debt, politics masquerading as science is a
luxury we can’t afford. Private entrepreneurs should assume the responsibility for space
travel and exploration, which policymakers could assist by reducing regulatory and
tax burdens
9
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – NASA = Wastes Tax Money [Link to Objectivism K]
NASA is a massive waste of taxpayer money and would only be useful if dismantled.
Villacampa 06
[Alexander Villacampa, economics at Univesity of Florida, 20 September 2006, "NASA: Exemplary of Government Waste,"
www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html]
It is quickly becoming the natural state of affairs that citizens are
no longer working for themselves but are
instead laboring in order to fill the greedy coffers of the State. Most individuals in the
United States have about half of their yearly income taken away by the government and this
percentage is steadily growing. A majority of the citizenry may believe that these funds are being funneled into important social projects
but in fact most
of this wealth is simply wasted by opportunist politicians and bureaucrats.
programs that would increase the wealth and
productivity of the citizenry if they were only dismantled. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), with a requested 2007 budget of almost $17 billion, is a government program that is nothing short
of wasteful. Individuals claim that a majority of NASA's funding is spent on the exploration of new useful technologies. The
There are an endless number of government
citizenry views the government as an entity that can fund and perform research in order to uncover technologies that would be beneficial
to the market. There
is no reason to believe that corporations, with patent laws in place, would not be
more than willing to research more efficient ways of creating products. Yet, even if it
were the case that government research in technology was necessary or beneficial,
NASA is funding scientific studies that are far from useful to the market. Much of NASA's
funding is spent directly on extraterrestrial initiatives that study the solar system, space exploration, and methods of improving shuttle
performance. It is also a myth that NASA created such technologies as Velcro, Tang and those famous memory-cell mattresses. In
reality, the maker of Velcro was a private engineer with a bright idea, Tang was created by the General Foods Corporation, and the
Tempur-Pedic company developed those memory-cell mattresses for use on NASA flights. These were all private initiatives and not
outcomes of NASA’s technological research efforts. To their credit, NASA did develop freeze-dried ice cream but who likes those
things anyway? NASA dedicates over two-thirds of its budget to space exploration and extraterrestrial research. The government
agency has spent close to $150 billion dollars simply on the shuttle program, which calculates to
about $1.3 billion per launch. This is a decent sum considering that the space shuttle program was sold to the taxpayers as only costing
$5.5 million per launch. The
question then arises, “should the United States citizens continue
to pay for such a costly program?” In the end, it is always the citizenry who pays. Naïve
individuals may believe that the Federal government has an endless spring of wealth from which it draws in order to fund its operations,
NASA has continuously let down the United States citizens and is
nothing but a wastebasket into which the government throws our hard-earned wealth.
but this is not the case.
The NASA shuttle tragedies are an outright shame, not only because of the precious lives lost, but also due to the immense cost of these
shuttles. The costs of these space ventures are steep and the rewards reaped from these explorations are close to nil. The Mars Observer,
that was lost in 1993, cost the taxpayers nearly $1 billion dollars. What the
government can not understand is
the profit and loss mechanism that is so ingrained into the market. Private entrepreneurs
produce goods in a way that minimizes costs in order to obtain a high profit margin . Government
programs, such as NASA, continuously spend without giving any benefit to the public . One may
say that the simple existence of shuttle programs are a psychological benefit to society but this does not justify the coercive collection of
taxes from citizens who may or may not be willing to donate to such a program. When government collects tax revenue, it does not
allocate the funds to where citizens demand but instead the funds are spent where politicians desire. Not to mention the fact that much of
this funding is lost in the shuffle between citizen and program and wind up in the golden pockets of pork-barrelers.
10
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – Politics – Obama/NASA Supports
Obama and NASA officials advocate privatization to focus NASA budget on other pursuits.
Moskowitz 3/03
[Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com, 3 March 2011, "55 Space Leaders Urge Lawmakers to Boost
Private Spaceflight," www.space.com/11021-nasa-budget-congress-commercial-spaceflight.html
A group of more than 55 space leaders is petitioning Congress to support commercial
spaceflight in an open letter this week. The plea comes as lawmakers are debating a new federal budget,
including the question of how much money to devote to NASA. President Obama and
NASA chief Charlie Bolden are advocating for more funds to spur the development of private
spaceships to replace the iconic space shuttle as the flagship of U.S. astronaut transportation to the International Space
Station. That plan, they say, would allow NASA to invest in a longer-term project to build a
rocket that can carry astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit to asteroids and Mars. But some
members of Congress want NASA to spend less on commercial spaceflight and divert those funds to building its own next-generation
spacecraft. The signatories of the new letter, which is dated March 1, come out firmly for the former plan. "By
creating
competition, and using fixed price contracts, NASA’s commercial crew program offers a much
less expensive way of transporting NASA astronauts to the station than any other
domestic means," they wrote. "Funding NASA’s Commercial Crew program would lower
the cost of access to low Earth orbit, thus enabling more of NASA’s budget to be
applied to its focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit." Of the names on the letter, 14 are former NASA
astronauts – including Apollo spaceflyer Russell "Rusty" Schweickart. Former NASA officials – such as Scott
Hubbard, the former director of NASA's Ames Research Center – and many in the private space industry have
also added their names
11
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – Politics – GOP Support
GOP supports– reestablishing US leadership and dynamism in the space industry means
privatization.
Kaffsack 98
[Hanns-Jochen Kaffsack, Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 10 September 1998, "The future of
America's space programme - privatisation?"]
The many question marks hanging over this mammoth project's finances and the difficulty of
cooperation with the Russians are issues to which Republicans repeatedly turn when
launching attacks against the government space programme. The Republicans are
demanding that the space programme be privatised sometime in the 21st century. The
U.S. space agency NASA is caught between the government and the opposition. Since 1994, its budget has shrunk by about 1 billion
dollars to 13.6 billion dollars. "This administration has been indifferent to the challenge of space,"
said opposition leader and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in an interview with Congressional Quarterly. Gingrich would like to see a
national conference on space next year, to
reestablish America's leading role in space. For his
Republican Party this means opening up space to privatisation. The aimlessness of U.S.
space policy has earned the criticism not only of the administration's political
enemies, but also the country's space enthusiasts. Many are demanding that the White House
provide a new dynamism and vision of the kind shown by John F. Kennedy, who focused NASA's efforts on
putting a man on the moon.
12
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – Politics – Budget Talks Decide
Congress still unsure of the benefits of commercialization – final decision comes down to
budget talks.
Moskowitz 3/03
[Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com, 3 March 2011, "55 Space Leaders Urge Lawmakers to Boost
Private Spaceflight," www.space.com/11021-nasa-budget-congress-commercial-spaceflight.html
Many in Congress remain opposed to the idea, though, questioning whether commercial
spacecraft can be as safe or reliable as NASA owned-and-operated vehicles. NASA
will get some direction when lawmakers can finally agree on a 2011 budget. For now, it is operating
at 2010 spending levels along with the rest of the country under a temporary measure called a continuing resolution. Congress and
Obama have until March 18 to come up with a new measure – or an official budget – before the government will have to shut down for
lack of funding.
13
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Link – NASA Inefficient
Governments have been empirically proven to be less efficient than private corporations.
Day 10
[Dwayne A. Day, American historian and policy analyst for the Space Studies Board of the
National Academy of Sciences, 28 June 2010, “Picking Up The Torch Vs. Dropping the Ball”,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1655/1]
Private companies are more efficient at developing spaceflight than government
entities. Private companies are better at developing spaceflight than government entities. The increase in the number of rich people
around the world makes private space development virtually inevitable. It is a core belief of American
capitalism, particularly since the Reagan era, that private industry is more efficient than government at
producing everything from hammers to airplanes. There is in fact evidence to support this
conclusion and a number of studies that have evaluated it. Usually those studies also seek to explore the causes of this disparity,
sometimes concluding that lower government efficiency is a result of the compromises
inherent in democratic government (for example, the necessity of seeking broad
support for an expenditure), and sometimes concluding that the government trades lower
efficiency for some other desired factor (such as classifying procurement in the
interests of national security).
14
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Spending
Private companies develop space more efficiently and at a lower cost than NASA.
DeHaven 10
[Tad DeHaven, budget analyst on federal and state budget issues, Cato Institute, “Can NASA
Compete with SpaceX?,” http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/can-nasa-compete-withspacex]
That’s the question posed by the Orlando Sentinel’s Robert Block in an article comparing NASA with SpaceX, which is a private space
private company called SpaceX launched an unmanned
version of its Dragon capsule into orbit, took it for a few spins around Earth, and then brought it home with a
splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. The total cost — including design, manufacture, testing and launch of the company's Falcon 9
rocket and the capsule — was roughly $800 million. In the world of government spaceflight, that's almost a rounding
error. And the ability of SpaceX to do so much with so little money is raising some serious
questions about NASA. Now compare with NASA: Over the past six years, NASA has spent
nearly $10 billion on the Ares I rocket and Orion capsule — its own version more or less of
what SpaceX has launched — and came up with little more than cost overruns and technical woes. In October, Congress
transport company:
Early this month, a
scrapped the Constellation moon program and ordered the agency to start over to design a rocket and capsule capable of taking humans
to explore the solar system. A Cato essay on cost overruns in government programs points out that NASA is one of the
government’s worst offenders: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
long had major cost overrun
problems, such as on its space station program. A GAO report in 2009 found that 10 of 13 major projects examined had substantial
cost overruns or schedule delays. Alan Stern, a former NASA associate administrator, recently noted that “our space program is
run inefficiently, and without sufficient regard to cost performance,” and further noted that costs
overruns are a “cancer” on the agency. Perhaps it’s a little unfair to use the word “compete” since SpaceX is receiving federal funds
from NASA. That said, it seems clear that allowing
the private sector to play a greater role in space is
ideal, especially given NASA’s history of fiscal mismanagement. Whereas private companies are
responsible to shareholders, NASA is responsible to policymakers who are often more concerned
about maintaining space-related jobs in their districts rather than getting the best
bang for the taxpayer buck.
15
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Development
Private development key to innovation and technology development.
Pelton 10
[Joseph N. Pelton, Space & Advanced Communications Research Institute, George Washington University, May 2010, “A new space vision for
NASA—And for space entrepreneurs too?” http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265964610000251]
XPrize Founder Peter Diamandis has noted that we
don't have governments operating taxi companies,
building computers, or running airlines-and this is for a very good reason.
Commercial organizations are, on balance, better managed, more agile, more innovative,
and more market responsive than government agencies. People as diverse as movie maker James
Cameron and Peter Diamandis feel that the best way forward is to let space entrepreneurs play a
greater role in space development and innovation. Cameron strongly endorsed a greater role for
commercial creativity in U.S. space programs in a February 2010 Washington Post article and explained why he felt this was the best
way forward in humanity's greatest adventure: “I applaud President Obama's
bold decision for NASA to focus
on building a space exploration program that can drive innovation and provide
inspiration to the world. This is the path that can make our dreams in space a reality.”
16
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Space Leadership
Counterplan solves for space leadership – privatization key to extending US primacy into
space.
Nelson 11
[Steve Nelson, 8 February 11, “Fiscal Conservatives call for increased privatization of space”,
http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-of-space/)
Tuesday morning the Competitive Space Task Force, a self-described group of fiscal conservatives and free-market
leaders, hosted a press conference to encourage increased privatization of the space industry. Members
of the task force issued several recommendations to Congress, including finding an
American replacement to the Space Shuttle (so to minimize the costly expenditures on use
of Russian spacecraft) and encouraging more private investment in the development
of manned spacecraft. Former Republican Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania said, “If we really want to
‘win the future’, we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and
human spaceflight. The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the
American entrepreneur.” Task Force chairman Rand Simberg, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said, “By
opening space up to the American people and their enterprises, NASA can ignite an
economic, technological, and innovation renaissance, and the United States will
regain its rightful place as the world leader in space.”
17
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Communications Satellites
Solves for satellite communication - the private sector is more capable of maintaining
communications than the USFG.
Clark 11
[Stephen Clark, 17 February 2011, Spaceflight Now, “U.S Military Turns To Private Sector For SATCOM Capacity,"
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/17milsatcom/, 2-17)
"The
commercial marketplace for procuring commercial satellite technologies is maturing
very rapidly, and in some cases may be eclipsing what the military can do," Pino said at a commercial space
conference in Washington last week. Pino said government-owned satellites should focus on nuclear-hardened communications,
contested environments and anti-jamming capabilities. Commercial satellites can provide the bulk of everyday communications for the
military. Military
satellite communications, or MILSATCOM, was ahead of commercial
technology 15 years ago, but Pino said he believes industry can provide better benign
communications than the government can today. "I used to always think the role of commercial was to
augment MILSATCOM," Pino said. "I'm unlearning what I used to think I knew. Commercial is here to stay."
18
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Jobs
Private corporations key to creation of US jobs and success in space efforts.
Moskowitz 3/03
[Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com, 3 March 2011, "55 Space Leaders Urge Lawmakers to Boost
Private Spaceflight," www.space.com/11021-nasa-budget-congress-commercial-spaceflight.html
The letter also argues that going the commercial space route would help spur the creation of U.S.
jobs. "By hiring American businesses, NASA's Commercial Crew to Space Station program
also generates thousands of high-tech American jobs across states ranging from Florida, to Alabama, to
Texas, to California, to Virginia, to Colorado, to Nevada and to Maryland, rather than sending these jobs overseas to Russia." The
letter got some lawmaker support yesterday (March 2), when Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) introduced it
into the record during hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. During the hearing, Bolden defended the
agency's budget request for the fiscal year of 2012. "These credentialed
experts are urging that NASA fully
fund the use of commercial companies to carry crew to the station because it is a strategy that is
critical for the nation's success in our space efforts," Rohrabacher said. "They point out that it would lower
the cost of low-Earth orbit, thus enabling more of NASA's budget to be applied to exploration beyond low-Earth orbit."
19
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
Solvency – Colonization
Counterplan solves colonization – manned missions can be executed more cheaply by
private companies.
Rees 09
[Martin Rees, astrophysicist and cosmologist at Cambridge University, Astronomer Royal,
former President of the Royal Society, Master of Trinity College, 22 July 2009, “Our next giant
leap will need private backing,” The Times,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6722405.ece]
Any of these motives could drive the first travellers to Mars, or the first long-term denizens of a lunar base. Manned
spaceflight could be a lot cheaper if it were not state-funded or a multinational programme, but
bankrolled privately. There have long been maverick dreamers with schemes for space exploits. Such enthusiasts now
include wealthy people with genuine commercial and technical savvy. Companies funded by Jeff Bezos, of Amazon, and Elon
Musk, the founder of PayPal, are developing new rockets. The recent “Google prize” to launch a robotic lunar lander is
engaging many ingenious inventors, and leveraging far more money than the prize itself. Potential sponsors with an eye on posterity
might note that Queen Isabella is now remembered primarily for her support of Columbus. If
humans venture back to
the Moon and beyond, they may carry commercial insignia rather than national flags.
Perhaps future space probes will be plastered in logos, as Formula One racers are now. Perhaps “robo-wars”
in space will be a lucrative spectator sport. Perhaps pioneer settlers in space communities will live (and even
die) in front of a worldwide audience — the ultimate in “reality TV”. One plausible scenario would
involve a permanently manned lunar base, pioneers on Mars, and perhaps small
artificial habitats cruising the solar system, attaching themselves to asteroids or
comets.
20
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
A2 Permutation Do Both
NO PERM, only total privatization can solve - public programs are inherently ineffective.
Villacampa 06
[Alexander Villacampa, economics at Univesity of Florida, 20 September 2006, "NASA: Exemplary of Government Waste,"
www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/villacampa2.html]
NASA, like all government programs, becomes increasingly less efficient as time goes by and its
purpose becomes less clear. The space shuttle programs may have once accomplished significant scientific discoveries
but this is no longer evident. In addition, the social reward of these programs, regardless of what scientific feats they accomplished, are
to be measured by a cost-profit analysis and not arbitrary merit. NASA's
space exploration programs have
continued to fail and this is only understandable to those aware of the lack of incentives present in the public
sector. Government, unlike the capitalist market, has little incentive to strive for
successful output and may often times overlook the many systematic failures present
in the execution of these programs. The public sector inherently has less of an
economic incentive to keep costs low and profits high. NASA knows that funding will continue, at least
for the coming year, and pushes on promises rather than accomplishments in order to receive funding. On the other hand, the private
The
failure of the NASA program is inevitably tied to the fact that it is not a private
company; it has much less of an economic incentive than those companies that are
furthest away from the government’s grasp.
sector functions on accomplishments, the achievement of its goals, and keeping costs at a minimum while maximizing profits.
21
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
A2 Commercial Tech Unsafe
The Chief of NASA maintains commercial spacecraft are as well-constructed and as safe
for astronauts as NASA-operated spacecraft.
Moskowitz 3/02
[Clara Moskowitz, SPACE.com, 2 March 2011, "NASA Chief Defends Space Budget Proposal
to Congress," www.space.com/11008-nasa-chief-space-budget-congress.html]
Some lawmakers object to the new privatization push because they don't trust
commercially built spacecraft to be as safe as vehicles owned and operated by NASA.
"Trying to stimulate commercial competition is a worthy goal that I support, but not at the expense of ensuring the safest or most robust
systems for our astronauts," Hall said. "There are simply too many risks at the present time not to have a viable fallback option."
Bolden disagreed that private spacecraft are any less safe than NASA's, which have
traditionally always been built, and operated, through commercial contractors
anyway. The new model, he said, was mainly a different acquisition format. "Safety of our crew is always my
priority," Bolden said. "The best, most efficient, perhaps fastest way to do that is by relying
on the commercial entities. Anyone who would try to convince you that American industry cannot produce is just not
being factual." Commercial spaceflight did have some backers in Congress today, including Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), who
introduced a letter signed by over 55 space leaders promoting the private space industry. "These credentialed
experts are
urging that NASA fully fund the use of commercial companies to carry crew to the station
because it is a strategy that is critical for the nation's success in our space efforts,"
Rohrabacher said. He compared having the government manage, operate and build all the space transportation vehicles today to people
who wanted the government to manage all aircraft 20 or 30 years ago. The debate comes as Congress
is trying to settle
on a budget for the 2011 fiscal year. So far, NASA and the rest of the federal government have been operating with 2010
funding levels under the current continuing resolution. Today the Senate passed a House resolution that would extend funding another
two weeks to buy them a little more time, but
the outlook for a longer-term budget is not yet decided.
22
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
A2 Space Debris
Privatization will not affect volume of space debris.
Dinkin 04
[Sam Dinkin, 26 July 2004, “Space Privatization: Road to Freedom”,
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/193/1]
In any case, there are two reasons that privatization will not substantially change the space debris
situation. First, this debris problem will continue if space remains the preserve of big
government even with business as usual. Second, regulations, such as the new FCC regulations for a
minimum amount of propellant to continue broadcasting, allow the government to keep the debris situation
under control.
23
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Perm – Do Both
Perm: do both. NASA’s missions are already partially privatized, there is no crowd-out of
space industry.
Dinerman 09
[Taylor Dinerman, Department of Defense consultant, 11 May 2009, “NASA Approves Partial
Privatization of the Space Program,” http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519609,00.html]
Last week, acting NASA Administrator Chris Scolese told a congressional subcommittee that the agency plans to give
$150 million in stimulus-package money to private companies that design , build and
service their own rockets and crew capsules — spacecraft that could put astronauts in orbit while
NASA finishes building the space shuttle's replacements . On Thursday, the White House ordered a
top-to-bottom review of the entire manned space program, one that will be led by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine,
long considered a friend of private space ventures . Both developments show that the
once-reluctant space agency
and the Obama administration are ready to support commercial human spaceflight.
It's a dramatic change, one that could reduce America's dependency on Russia for the next halfdecade after the space shuttle program ends, and one that could kick-start a space program
that some see as having stalled for 40 years. "Our government space program has become over-burdened with too
many objectives, and not enough cash," says William Watson, executive director of the Space Frontier Foundation, a Houston-based
group promoting commercial space activities . Watson said that allowing
private companies to handle routine
orbital duties could free up NASA to focus on returning to the moon and going to
Mars.
24
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails
Privatization has been empirically proven to fail.
Butler 10
[Katherine Butler, 8 March 2010, “The Pros and Cons of Commercializing Space Travel”,
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/the-pros-and-cons-ofcommercializing-space-travel]
Further, Dinerman points out that private efforts into space have failed again and again . He refers to
dozens of private start-ups that never got off the ground, let alone into space. Dinerman points
to Lockheed Martin's X-33 design, which was supposed to replace the space shuttle in
1996. The design never succeeded and ultimately cost the government $912 million and
Lockheed Martin $357 million. Amazon.com Chief Executive Jeff Bezos’ company Blue Origin set up the DCX program in the early 1990s. Its suborbital test vehicle was initially successful but was destroyed
in a landing accident. Dinerman claims, “The Clinton administration saw the DC-X as a Reagan/Bush legacy program, and
was happy to cancel it after the accident.”
25
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails
Privatization fails – private sector consistently fails to meet expectations.
Dinerman 2/13
[Taylor Dinerman, 13 February 2011, W all Street Journal, “Space: The Final Frontier of Profit?”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703382904575059263418508030.html)
President Barack Obama's proposed plan
for NASA bets that the private sector—small,
entrepreneurial firms as well as traditional aerospace companies—can safely carry
the burden of flying U.S. astronauts into space at a fraction of the former price. The main
idea: to spend $6 billion over the next five years to help develop new commercial spacecraft capable of carrying humans. The
private sector simply is not up for the job. For one, NASA will have to establish a system
to certify commercial orbital vehicles as safe for human transport, and with
government bureaucracy, that will take years. Never mind the challenges of obtaining
insurance. Entrepreneurial companies have consistently overpromised and underdelivered. Over the past 30 years, over a dozen start-ups have tried to break into the
launch business. The only one to make the transition into a respectably sized space company is Orbital Sciences of Dulles, Va.
Building vehicles capable of going into orbit is not for the fainthearted or the undercapitalized.
26
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails – Lacks Capability
Privatization fails – the space industry will lack capability to take over for many years.
AFP 10
[Agence France-Presse, 3 February 2010, "Private industry in space a risky, slow business:
experts,” www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBukIQI6Wq7frEdCLRiBKq7j3GA]
WASHINGTON — NASA's plan for the private sector to build spacecraft to fly astronauts to the International
Space Station is a high-risk undertaking that won't show results for years, experts said .
The abrupt shift "harnesses our nation's entrepreneurial energies, and will create thousands of new jobs," the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy said in a statement issued as the budget for the fiscal year that begins October 1 was unveiled
Monday. It also reflects a key recommendation made by the high-level Augustine Commission, which President Barack Obama set up
last year to review US human space flight plans and come up with a successor to the space shuttle, which winds down in late 2010 after
nearly 30 years of service. The US space agency's plan to turn manned space flight over to private enterprise was
met with a
less-than-enthusiastic reception in some quarters. Obama has "accepted the move to
put our human access to space on a commercial footing, with great uncertainty as to
safety, schedule and cost," wrote four-time space shuttle astronaut Tom Jones in the magazine Popular Mechanics. John
Logsdon, former head of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, said critics of the new policy were "mainly
concerned about safety." Similar concerns about commercially built space vehicles figured high up in a report issued last month by the
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP). "No
manufacturer of commercial orbital transportation
services is currently qualified for human-rating requirements, despite some claims
and beliefs to the contrary," ASAP's panel of independent experts said. The annual report also warned it would be
"unwise" to drop NASA's Ares 1 rocket, part of the costly Constellation project that was effectively killed by the budget plans, and hand
over the ferrying of astronauts to the ISS to private industry. ASAP was set up by Congress in 1967 after a flash fire ripped through a
command module during a launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle, killing three astronauts on board. Elon Musk, chief
executive of SpaceX, one of the new generation of privately-owned companies with an eye on space, ripped into the ASAP report as
"random speculation." "If they are to say such things, then they ought to say it on the basis of data, not on random speculation," Musk,
whose eight-year-old company has built and tested a launcher, said in an interview with Spaceflight Now. Charles Precourt, former chief
of NASA's astronaut corps and now an executive at aerospace and defense firm Alliant Techsystems, said in The Wall Street Journal that
farming out large portions of the manned space program to private firms would be
an "extremely high risk" path. Putting all of NASA's spacecraft-building eggs in the basket of private industry was
foolhardy, former astronaut Tom Jones said. "Betting our nation's sole access to space on industry's
ability to replicate 50 years of NASA experience on the fly is unwise. NASA should fly a
new crewed spacecraft as quickly as possible, then move to commercial firms once they have a proven
record of reliable cargo services," he wrote.
27
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails – Lacks Capability
Privatization fails – private companies have historically just been freeloading off of
governmental research and development.
McGowan 09
[John McGowan, contractor at NASA Ames Research Center, 8 June 2009, “Can the private sector make a
breakthrough in space access?” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1388/1]
One might sensibly ask where the working prototypes come from today? With
the sharp increase in government
support for research and development during and following World War II, the nominal private sector
has frequently been able to rely on the government for the development of working
prototypes of new technologies. Indeed, Silicon Valley, often cited as a shining example of free market
capitalism, in part grew out of government spy satellite programs at Moffett Field. Similarly, the
Internet and the World Wide Web were developed to the advanced prototype stage—
really a working system—entirely with government funding by DARPA, NSF, CERN, and several other government
agencies. A range of favorable legislation such as the Bayh-Dole Act have made it easy for private businesses to license the fruits of
means is that “private” high
technology investors and entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos often have negligible
experience with the research and development of core technologies comparable to rocket engines. This differs from iconic
government research and development programs on excellent terms. What this
historical inventors like James Watt and the Wright Brothers. Institutional investors such as venture capital funds also have little
experience evaluating,
funding or managing the sort of research and development of core
technologies that is probably required to achieve cheap access to space.
28
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails – Kills Innovation
Privatization fails – private sector will commercialize, not strive for innovation and
development.
Effective Papers 4/16
[Effective Papers, 16 April 2011, “Research Paper on Space Exploration,”
http://effectivepapers.blogspot.com/2011/04/research-paper-on-space-exploration.html]
As with every positive viewpoint in a debate, there must be a negative perspective. Some believe that putting scientific
research into the hands of business is a step in the wrong direction. There is a fear that
private industry's objective for space exploration will focus on the pursuit of profit rather
than the pursuit of knowledge and development. Continuing with that theory, privatization could lead to
commercialization. Space could become polluted with advertisements. Hasty business
ventures might occur without weighing all the possible long-term effects. Privatization of
NASA is not the cure-all solution. Although it may help relieve federal expenditure,
new problems will surface. Completely turning over operations from NASA to
private businesses will compromise safety and other important engineering concerns
for the sake of profit.
29
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails – Kills Innovation/Leadership
Privatization is detrimental to innovation and stunts American leadership in space.
Wu 10
[David Wu, chairman of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and
Innovation, 15 April 2010, “Debate: Obama’s Space Privatization Plan Is a Costly Mistake,”
http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/debate-obamas-space-privatization-plan-is-a-costlymistake/]
The Constellation program is not perfect. But putting all of our eggs in a private-sector
basket is simply too risky a gamble. If the president's plan is implemented, we would be jeopardizing
our nation's lead in space exploration, and we would be jeopardizing our children's future. The space
program encourages us to reach for the stars in both our dreams and our actions. It helps drive innovation, and it
challenges us to find creative solutions to technological challenges. Moreover, it inspires
America's next generation of scientists and engineers to pursue their passions -- something we
must have if our nation is to compete in the 21st century global economy. The
president's plan to privatize our spaceflight program will hinder our nation's ability
to remain at the forefront of human achievement for generations to come. We must
reconsider.
30
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Privatization Fails – Security Risk
Privatization fails – represents a security risk and an inefficient alternative to NASA.
Foust 10
[Jeff Foust, 22 March 2010, The Space Review, “Can commercial space win over Congress,”
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1592/1]
John Culberson (R-TX), a fiscal conservative not normally supportive of big government programs, defended
Constellation, likening commercialization of crew transportation to privatization of
the Marines. “It is as inconceivable to me that the president would privatize the Marine
Corps and hand over their job to the private sector as it is to imagine the closing
down of America’s manned space program,” he said. He even considered it something of a
national security risk: “If the private sector exclusively owns access to space, who owns the
technology? They’d have the right to sell it to any nation on the face of the Earth?” (Not easily,
thanks to the export control regime that covers space technology in the US today.) “Imagine if America had to hitch a ride on a
commercial vehicle,” he continued. “If the private sector and the Chinese and Russians control access to space, they could charge us
whatever they want.” That afternoon, a Senate hearing delved into the issues of commercial spaceflight. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (RTX), ranking member of the full Senate Commerce Committee, expressed
support for commercial human
spaceflight in general, but did not believe NASA should solely rely upon it yet. “I think in
the end that we will have commercial capabilities, but I think this gap [in human space access] is too important to rely on just
commercial,” she said, referring to her efforts to extend the shuttle program beyond its planned retirement this year (see “Shuttle
supporters’ last stand?”s, The Space Review, March 15, 2010). At the hearing, which featured a broad range of current and former
government officials as well as aerospace company executives, some witnesses expressed skepticism
that commercial
providers could provide crew transportation on the timescales proposed, or do so cost
effectively. “It may be that the complexity of developing a new government crew space
transportation capability, and the difficulty of conducting spaceflight operations
safely and reliably, it is not fully appreciated by those who are recommending the
cancellation of the present system being developed by NASA, and the early adaptation of the presently non-existent
commercial government crew delivery alternatives,” former astronaut Tom Stafford, a veteran of Gemini and Apollo, noted in his
prepared testimony.
31
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Government Key to Space
NASA key to space - sustained development of space can only be done by the government.
The Daily Caller 11
[The Daily Caller, 27 April 2011, “The Republican dilemma: Reduce federal spending, but don’t
you dare cut my special interests,” http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/27/the-republican-dilemmareduce-federal-spending-but-dont-you-dare-cut-my-special-interests/#ixzz1Oj9onhmi]
George LeMieux wants to cut government spending and shrink the federal government .
That is, unless you’re talking about paying for space ships that fly to asteroids. The former Florida Republican senator, who
recently launched his campaign to unseat current Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, vowed Tuesday to increase spending for the nation’s
space exploration program while simultaneously touting his record on limited government. “There are very few things
the federal government should be doing,” LeMieux said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. “But
one of the few things the federal government can only do is space exploration. We are
seeing good private sector folks that are trying to go into low- Earth orbit and that’s
great and we should encourage them, but the only folks that are going to go to an
asteroid or go to Mars is going to be NASA.”
32
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Government Key to Space
NASA key to further space development – private corporations will be unable to go any
further unless NASA continues its work.
Hickam 07
[Homer Hickam, former NASA designer and astronaut trainer, 3 October 2007, "NASA vs. the
far-out space nuts,” www.latimes.com/la-op-dustup3oct03,0,4382440.story)
What I'm getting at is that even with my libertarian tendencies, I see a place for federal agencies
like NASA to use public funds to accomplish great technological things that are necessary
to keep us a great and modern country but that private enterprise simply can't do.
Energy is one of those areas (fusion energy and clean-burning coal technology should be national priorities). Another is transportation
(the interstate and high-speed rail), and so is pure scientific research in areas that help us understand our planet and ourselves even if
they never have any commercial application (e.g. studying the fumaroles at the bottom of the ocean). In NASA's case, the few coins of
the public purse the agency gets are for the express purpose of building the machines that will allow us to go into, explore and ultimately
live in space. Private
enterprise has some interest in seeing that dream accomplished, but
the technology to make it happen — beyond brief Rutan-like jumps into space — is currently beyond
its capability or interest. NASA has to prime the commercial pump by creating big
technology and then handing it over. We have a history of doing that kind of thing, so we know it works. The old
Army arsenal system, for instance, invented new ordnance for decades using knowledge and craftsmen not available to normal
commerce. An example is the famous World War II-era M-1 Garand, which was a federal arsenal design. So rather than being an
impediment, NASA
can and should be the driver of commerce, the provider of the
technology necessary to make some big money in space. The truth is that private enterprise already has a
huge presence up there. It's not NASA but commercial companies that send all those communications satellites rocketing aloft to the
tune of billions of dollars of profits every year. Boeing,
LockMart and hundreds of other companies,
large and small, work in the space business, and they also create new techniques and
technology; but they'd be nowhere if NASA and the Department of Defense hadn't shown the way
by funding the first big rockets and satellites. And commercial companies will stay where they are unless
these same agencies build the big, new machines to take us farther out. In other words, as far as
science and technology are concerned, government and commerce have a symbiotic relationship. Of course, it's best when you have a
government that knows when to get out of the way. That sometimes requires a little bureaucratic head-knocking, but I'm sure Congress
is up to the task. Well, I'm not sure, considering who's running that show in Washington; but I'm ever hopeful anyway. I guess that's why
they call me the Rocket Boy.
33
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: US Leadership
Obama’s proposal to privatize space marks the end of American leadership in space, kills
American ability to defend freedom and liberty in the future.
Schmitt 10
[Harrison Schmitt, 15 April 2010, americasuncommonsense.com/blog/2010/04/15/space-policyand-the-constitution-2/
The President has repeated his advocacy for the abandonment of a program of deep space exploration by Americans in return
for vague promises about future actions. His irrational and technically ridiculous proposals on
national space policy, now largely adopted by the Congress, would put the nation into a steady
decline in its human space flight endeavors toward the total absence of NASA Astronauts from space within a decade.
With the demise of the International Space Station in about 2020, if not sooner, America’s nationally sanctioned human spaceflight
activities would end. American leadership absent from space– is this the future we will leave to our children and the cause of liberty? I
hope not. Once again, the President and his supporters in this fool’s errand exposed their basic belief that America is not exceptional,
that Americans should apologize for protecting liberty for 250 years, and that the human condition would be no worse off without our
past expenditure of lives, time, and treasure in freedom’s behalf. Since 1957, national
space policy, like naval policy in the
centuries before, has set the geopolitical tone for the interactions between the United States
and its international allies and adversaries. The President’s FY2011 budget
submission to Congress shifts that tone away from leadership by America by
abandoning human exploration and settlement of the Moon and Mars to China and,
effectively, leaving the Space Station under the dominance of Russia for its remaining
approximately 10-year life. With the Station’s continued existence inherently limited by aging, these proposals sign the
death warrant for NASA-sponsored human space flight. Until the Space Station’s inevitable shutdown,
the President also proposes Americans ride into space at the forbearance of the Russians, so far, at a cost of more than $60 million a seat.
Do we really want to continue to go, hat in hand, to the Russians to access a Space Station
American taxpayers have spent $150 billion to build? What happens as the
geopolitical and ideological interests of the United States and an increasingly
authoritarian Russia continue to diverge? In spite of funding neglect by the previous Administration and
Congresses, a human space flight program comparable to Constellation remains the best way to develop the organizational framework,
hardware, and generational skills necessary for Americans to continue to be leaders in the exploration and eventual settlement of deep
space. Protecting
liberty and ourselves will be at great risk and probably impossible in
the long term if we now abandon deep space to any other nation or group of nations,
particularly a non-democratic, authoritarian regime like China. To others would accrue the
benefits, psychological, political, economic, technical, and scientific, that accrued to the United States from Apollo’s success 40 years
ago. This lesson from John Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower has not been lost on our ideological and economic competitors.
34
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: US Leadership – NASA Key
NASA key to US leadership – private sector can’t solve.
Sterner 10
[Eric R. Sterner, April 2010, George C. Marshall Institute, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic
Direction,” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/797.pdf]
The United States can only continue to set a global agenda in space by challenging
countries to work together in pursuit of a unifying purpose. It took decades after the Apollo
program and the stunning loss of seven astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia for U.S. policymakers to
establish a bipartisan, bicameral consensus on the future of the human exploration
program. The fiscal year 2011 budget proposal has already undone that consensus,
dividing proponents of a forwardleaning civil space program from advocates of space
commercialization, human spaceflight from robotic exploration, and one state from another. In retreating from
an exploration program focused on establishing a permanent presence on the moon
and reaching Mars within a specific timeframe, the United States will create
uncertainty about its plans, leaving others to take the initiative, lay moral claims to a
leadership role, and increase their influence in establishing the formal and informal
norms that will govern human space exploration for decades. Leadership requires the
reverse.
35
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: US Leadership – Impact
US leadership prevents escalation of ground regional wars and failed states.
Cynamon 09
[Charles H. Cynamon, USAF Colonel, 12 February 2009, “Defending America’s Interests in Space,”
https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/display.aspx?rs=enginespage&ModuleID=be0e99f3-fc56-4ccb-8dfe670c0822a153&Action=downloadpaper&ObjectID=236c0cec-26d6-4053-ab82-19a783259606]
In the future, the
primary sources of trans-regional, interstate and intra-state conflict are non-globalized,
failed nations and ideologically motivated non-state actors. Even though sporadic
tensions between major globalized nations have occurred, the resulting violent clashes
have not lead to high-intensity conflicts. US conventional military power supported by
well-protected space systems has remained the key deterrent against major power
war. In space, the United States retains preeminence for support to the world’s sole
global expeditionary military. Over the course of 20 years, the United States bolstered its commercial and civil space
industrial base with foreign space system exports and international cooperative programs. Joint ventures in manned space flight with the
major spacefaring nations returned mankind to the moon for scientific exploration investigating extraction of key minerals, energy
sources, and launch bases for more ambitious space travel opportunities. Despite orbiting US anti-ballistic missile systems, a
space
arms race never materialized with respect to ASAT weapons. The confluence of interagency efforts
shaped the strategic environment in which the world perceives the United States as
the enforcer of peaceful uses of space.
36
KNDI 2011
<Author Name>
<File Name>
<Lab Name>
AFF: Space Debris
Privatization causes space debris.
Gagnon 03
[Bruce Gagnon, former coordinator of the Florida Coalition for Peace and Justice and coordinator of the Global
Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, 26 July 2003, “Space Privatization: Road to Conflict,”
http://www.space4peace.org/articles/road_to_conflict.htm]
We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over
100,000 bits of debris are now tracked
on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m.p.h. Several space
shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked
windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because
space junk was coming dangerously close. Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be
destroyed by debris. As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances
of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon
we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an
orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space. The time as
certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late .
37