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