Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 1

Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 1 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Mission to Mars Affirmative 1.0- Index

Mission to Mars Affirmative 1.0- Index ...... 1

1ac- Inherency ...... 3 1ac- Plan Text ...... 3

**Inherency** ...... 3 Inherency Extensions ...... 3 Inherency- Space Leadership Down Now ...... 3 Inherency- Space Leadership Down Now ...... 3 Inherency- Space Leadership Down Now ...... 3 Inherency- World Passing U.S...... 3 Inherency-Private Sector Now ...... 3

**Solvency** ...... 3 1ac- Solvency 1/4 ...... 3 1ac- Solvency 2/4 ...... 3 1ac- Solvency 3/4 ...... 3 1ac- Solvency 4/4 ...... 3 Solvency Extensions ...... 3 Solvency Extensions ...... 3 Solvency Extensions ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Key ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Key ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Possible ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Possible ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Colonization possible ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Direct Good ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Efficient ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Now Key ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Humans Key ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Colonization Leads to Terraforming ...... 3 Solvency Extensions- Mars Direct Cheap and Possible ...... 3 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 2 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Advantages** ...... 3 **Alien Contact Advantage** ...... 3 1ac- Alien Contact Advantage 1/2 ...... 3 1ac- Alien Contact Advantage 2/2 ...... 3 Alien Contact Adv Extensions ...... 3

**Colonization Advantage** ...... 3 1ac- Colonization Advantage 1/3 ...... 3 1ac- Colonization Advantage 2/3 ...... 3 1ac- Colonization Advantage 3/3 ...... 3 Colonization Advantage- Extinction Coming ...... 3 Colonization Advantage- Extinction Coming ...... 3 Colonization Advantage Solvency- Mars Key ...... 3

**Economy Advantage** ...... 3 1ac- Economy Advantage 1/3 ...... 3 1ac- Economy Advantage 2/3 ...... 3 1ac- Economy Advantage 3/3 ...... 3 Economy Advantage- Colonization Helps Econ ...... 3 Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Resources ...... 3 Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Emigration ...... 3 Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Triangle Trade ...... 3 Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Triangle Trade ...... 3

**Ethics Advantage** ...... 3 1ac- Ethics Advantage 1/2 ...... 3 1ac- Ethics Advantage 2/2 ...... 3 Ethics Advantage Extensions ...... 3 Ethics Advantage Extensions Cont...... 3

**Leadership Advantage** ...... 3 1ac- Leadership Advantage 1/3 ...... 3 1ac- Leadership Advantage 2/3 ...... 3 1ac- Leadership Advantage 3/3 ...... 3 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 3 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Leadership Adv Extensions- STEM Leadership ...... 3 Leadership Adv Extensions- Tech Innovation ...... 3 Leadership Adv Extensions- Tech Innovation ...... 3 Leadership Adv Extensions- Tech Innovation ...... 3 Leadership Adv Extensions- Hegemony ...... 3 Leadership Adv Extensions- Hegemony ...... 3

Nuke Power Advantage Add-On 1/2 ...... 3 Nuke Power Advantage Add-On 2/2 ...... 3 Nuke Power Advantage Add-On Extensions ...... 3

Democracy Advantage Add-On ...... 3

**Misc Cards** ...... 3 Aff/Cp Solvency? Private Ownership Key ...... 3 Aff/CP Solvency- One Way Mission ...... 3

**2ac A2** ...... 3 A2 Diseases ...... 3 A2 Diseases ...... 3 A2 Humans will screw up Mars ...... 3 A2 Dust Storms ...... 3 A2 No Tech ...... 3 A2 No Tech ...... 3 A2 No Gravity ...... 3 A2 Psychology ...... 3 A2 Radiation ...... 3 A/T Unethical ...... 3 A2 Wont Survive ...... 3 A2 Budget/Econ DA ...... 3 A2 Budget/Econ DA ...... 3 A2 Budget/Econ DA ...... 3 A2 Budget/Econ DA ...... 3 A/T Spending DA- Mars pays for itself ...... 3 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 4 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Politics- Mars Popular ...... 3 A2 Politics- Mars Popular ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Mars Colonization Solves Leftist K ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Mars Colonization Solves Leftist K ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Mars Colonization Solves Leftist K ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Mars k2 New World ...... 3 A/T Anthropocentrism ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Expansionism Good ...... 3 A2 Kritiks- Frontier Good ...... 3 A2 Agent CP- Perm Solvency ...... 3 A/T One Way CP ...... 3 A/T Privatization CP- Public Action Key ...... 3 A/T-Privatization CP-Perm Solvency ...... 3 A2 Moon Colonization CP ...... 3 A2 Moon Colonization CP ...... 3

**Negative** ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- No Magnetic Field ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mission Fails- Sexual Politics ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Mutations ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Climate Change ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Can’t Reproduce ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Too Cold ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Radiation ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Solar Wind ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Tech ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Tech ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- NASA Inefficient ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Mission Fails- Cost ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Empirically ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Bad- Fails as Colony ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Infighting ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Diseases ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Diseases ...... 3 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 5 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Back Contamination ...... 3 Solvency 1NC- Humans Contaminate Mars ...... 3 Adv 1NC- A2 Overview Effect ...... 3 Adv 1NC- Tech Solves ...... 3

**Moon Colonization CP** ...... 3 1nc Solvency ...... 3 2nc Solvency Extensions ...... 3 2nc Solvency Extensions ...... 3 2nc CP Solves Econ D/A ...... 3

**Privatization CP Solvency** ...... 3 Privatization CP-Mars ...... 3 Privatization CP-Mars Cont...... 3 Privatization CP-Mars Cont...... 3 Entrepreneurs Solve ...... 3

**Kritik Cards** ...... 3 Kritik Links- Colonization= Eurocentric ...... 3 Kritik Alternative- Solves Case/Comes First ...... 3

**Disad Links** ...... 3 Link-Spending/Budget DA ...... 3 Budget DA Links- ...... 3 Budget DA Links- ...... 3 Link-Politics ...... 3 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 6 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Inherency

Despite advances in technology were still not close a Mars mission now

Foust, 2011 [Jeff, space review editor and publisher, “Reviews: Revisiting the Moon and Mars.” 7-5-2011, Online, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1874/1] /WFI-MB However, as Zubrin notes with palpable frustration in the preface of the revised version of The Case for Mars, we’re no closer to a human Mars mission now than we were when the original version was published 15 years ago. While robotic exploration has produced breakthroughs in our knowledge of Mars since 1996, there’s been no similar breakthroughs in plans for human exploration: “Aside from the information returned by the robots, NASA today is no better prepared to send humans to Mars than it was in 1996,” he writes (emphasis in original). So, Zubrin hopes that an updated version of the book will allow lightning to strike again, this time with more effect on NASA’s human spaceflight planning than before. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 7 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Plan Text

Thus the Plan:

The United States federal government should fund a Mars Direct colonization mission as per Robert Zubrin in 1996. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 8 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Inherency**

Inherency Extensions

Inherency- Space Leadership Down Now

U.S. Space Leadership Decreasing

Cherry 11 [Mary Als, writer for the Bay Area News, “Moon men: U.S. space leadership slipping”, 5-29-2011, http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/bay_area/news/article_9857fa1d-60e9-511c-81a7-e7eb08e87c1f.html WFI-MZ] While America pauses to remember President Kennedy’s moon challenge 50 years ago, three famous astronauts think we have “strayed widely from President Kennedy’s vision and the will of the American people.” Neil Armstong and Eugene Cernan, the first and last men to walk on the moon, joined Jim Lovell, whose ill-fated Apollo 13 mission cut short his journey to the lunar surface, have written a column in USA Today, suggesting that President Obama advisors, “in searching for a new and different NASA strategy with which the president could be favorably identified, have ignored NASA’s operational mandate.” After tracing America’s awesome achievements of the past five decades, the retired astronauts note how the Constellation program NASA was developing to venture back to the moon and on to Mars enjoyed near unanimous support in Congress and the Bush administration but fell behind schedule and was deemed “not viable” by a review panel, due to inadequate funding. SHOCK WAVES When the president failed to include funds for Constellation in his 2010 budget, “it sent shock waves throughout NASA, the Congress and the American people. Nearly $10 billion had been invested in design and development of the program,” they said. “The response to Kennedy's bold challenge a half-century ago has led to America's unchallenged leadership in space. We take enormous pride in all that has been accomplished in the past 50 years. And we have the people, the skills and the wherewithal to continue to excel and reach challenging goals in space exploration. LEADERSHIP SLIPPING However, they continue, “today America's leadership in space is slipping. NASA's human spaceflight program is in substantial disarray with no clear-cut mission in the offing. We will have no rockets to carry humans to low-Earth orbit and beyond for an indeterminate number of years. “ Congress has mandated the development of rocket launchers and spacecraft to explore the near-solar system beyond Earth orbit. But NASA has not yet announced a convincing strategy for their use. After a half-century of remarkable progress, a coherent plan for maintaining America's leadership in space exploration is no longer apparent. “Kennedy launched America on a new ocean. For 50 years we explored the waters to become the leader in space exploration. Today, under the announced objectives, the voyage is over. John F. Kennedy would have been sorely disappointed. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 9 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

US space leadership at all time low

Cunningham 10 [Walter, pilot of first manned Apollo mission and author of The All-American Boys, “Taking a bite out of NASA”, Houston Chronicle, 2-6-2010, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6854790.html WFI-MZ] Most important, strategically, is the gap, the period during which we will be dependent on Russia to carry Americans to our own space station. With the cancellation of Constellation, that gap will grow longer, not shorter. American astronauts will not travel into space on American-developed and -built spacecraft until at least 2016 or 2017. We are not trying to fix any deficiencies in Constellation; our fate will be in the hands of commercial companies with COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services) program awards. They will attempt to regain our lost greatness with new capsules and new rockets or military rockets, after man-rating them. Supposedly, they will do this faster and cheaper than NASA. Cheaper, maybe; faster is not going to happen. These will be companies that have never made a manned rocket and have little idea of the problems they face trying to man-rate a brand new launch vehicle and space capsule. Even under the best of circumstances, humans will not be flying to the space station on COTS-developed vehicles before 2017. After 50 years and several hundred billion dollars, the accomplishments of NASA and the U.S. space program in science, technology and exploration are unchallenged. They are admired, respected and envied by people and countries around the world. Our space program has provided inspiration to the human spirit for young and old alike. It said proudly to the world that Americans could accomplish whatever they set their minds to. Look at the efforts of China and India in the past 30 years to emulate this success. Young people have always been inspired with talk of sending explorers to the planets. Do you think they will have the same reaction when we speak of the new plan for “transformative technology development”? NASA may have been backing away from the real challenge of human spaceflight for years, but in canceling Constellation and NASA manned vehicles we are, in effect, abdicating our role as the leading spacefaring nation of the world. America will lose its pre-eminence in space.

US reliance on Russia causes NASA to fall back to square one

Hawkins 11 [William, consultant for international economic and national security issues, former economics professor and Republican congressional staff member, “Forfeiting U.S. Leadership in Space”, Family Security Matters, 3-7-2011, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8906/pub_detail.asp WFI-MZ] The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has put out its 2011 Strategic Plan. Its first goal is to "extend and sustain human activities across the solar system." As the lead civilization of the current era, it is America's duty to advance human achievement. Yet, there is very little in the NASA plan or budget to fulfill this noble goal. The NASA plan relies first and foremost on "expanding efforts to utilize the ISS as a National Laboratory for scientific, technological, diplomatic, and educational purposes and for supporting future objectives in human space exploration." But without the shuttle or a replacement space vehicle, the U.S. will be dependent on the Russians for access to the ISS. Yes, the Russians, who lost both the Space Race and the Cold War in the last century, are now poised to control the ISS. The Russians, it should be remembered, were invited into the ISS because the U.S., even though it was the richest nation on the planet and the world's most advanced scientific state, was looking for other countries to put up money for the ISS to lighten its own "burden." It would be hard to find a better example of the old adage "penny wise, but pound foolish." NASA notes the danger. Its strategic plan has as a goal "reducing the risk of relying exclusively on foreign crew transport capabilities." But the road to that goal will be a long one. The report talks about creating “architectures" that will then lead to a "roadmap for affordable and sustainable human space exploration." So after 30 years of relying on shuttles that were designed in the 1970s, NASA is back to square one.

US Space Heg Low

Morring Jr., 10 [Frank, senior space technology editor for Aviation Week, “U.S. Space Leadership Seen at Risk”, Aviation Week, 5- 3-2010, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp? channel=space&id=news/asd/2010/05/03/11.xml WFI-MZ] A preliminary version of an upcoming report on the link between national security and U.S. commercial launch capabilities warns that U.S. leadership in space is threatened by poor coordination in setting space policy. The Center for Strategic and International Studies is seeking website comment on its report — “National Security and the Commercial Space Sector” — in the hope that several ongoing government space policy reviews will incorporate the best advice on sound commercial launch policy in their findings. “We do not have a very sophisticated approach to industrial security and technology,” said John Hamre, president of CSIS and a former deputy U.S. defense secretary, during an event in Washington April 30. Presenting what he said were his personal views on the subject, Hamre charged that export-control techniques set up to keep the Soviet Union from using valuable U.S. defense technology don’t work today, when modern communications make it much more difficult to contain industrial secrets. “We now have the most reliable commercial launch vehicle in China, and we thought we were going to freeze them out so they could never move forward,” Hamre said. David Berteau, director of the CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group that is preparing the report, said he could not validate Hamre’s charge about China’s Long March launcher reliability. But he and Gregory Kiley, a lead analyst on the report, cautioned that U.S. space policymaking is “stovepiped,” even though it affects the defense, civil, commercial and intelligence space sectors. While CSIS identified “as many as 29 recently completed or ongoing space launch studies within the U.S. government,” it found no one group within the government had oversight on them all. As an example, Berteau said, “we did not anticipate the president’s budget decision” on NASA, which could have significant impact on U.S. commercial launch capability if it is used to deliver crews to the International Space Station. Kiley noted that Defense Secretary Robert Gates has publicly stated that he was “not adequately” consulted on the policy shift at NASA. “Making a decision in one sector without thinking through the implications and ramifications for the others is not good policy,” Kiley said.

Inherency- World Passing U.S.

World surpassing US

Hawkins 11 [William, consultant for international economic and national security issues, former economics professor and Republican congressional staff member, “Forfeiting U.S. Leadership in Space”, Family Security Matters, 3-7-2011, http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8906/pub_detail.asp WFI-MZ] Meanwhile, China is positioning itself to lead humankind' further into space. The state news agency Xinhua reported Friday, "The world's largest design, production and testing base for rockets is being built in Tianjin" as part of China's expanding space program. Twenty of the 22 plants have been completed, and some of are ready for operation. The base is designed to meet China's growing demand for space technology for the next thirty years. By integrating the industrial chain, the base will be able to produce the whole spectrum of rockets for China's lunar missions, its own space station and other ambitious projects according to Liang Xiaohong, deputy head of the China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology. China is still behind the United States, having only sent its first multi-man orbital mission aloft in 2008, but it has big ideas. Beijing plans 20 space missions this year, and wants to land an unmanned vehicle on the Moon in 2013. China sent a spacecraft to orbit the Moon last October. The stirring vision of giant space stations, commercial shuttle flights and extensive moon bases given to the public in the classic 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey has become a sad testimony to three decades of lost American opportunities. I have seen this once great American spirit of adventure reborn in China. I have been amazed (and alarmed) by displays of Chinese plans to build bases on the Moon, then move farther into the solar system. I grew up in a confident America animated by futuristic thinking, but that drive has faded. Beijing is now the home of energy and ambition. What happens in space is not divorced from what happens on Earth. Though clearly helpful to military space projects, NASA is charted as a civilian organization in line with idealist notions about the heavens being a clean slate free of power politics. There are no such illusions in China. Beijing's manned-space program is placed under the General Armament Department within the Ministry of Defense. The Long March rockets used for space launches are similar in design to China's nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. More important, is the spirit demonstrated in the space effort. History has not been kind to nations that stagnate in the face of a rising competitor. The desire to succeed is the most important element in any strategy. China plans to conduct its first spacewalk in October. The European Space Agency is building a roving robot to land on Mars. India recently launched a record 10 satellites into space on a single rocket. Space, like Earth below, is globalizing. And as it does, America's long-held superiority in exploring, exploiting and commercializing "the final frontier" is slipping away, many experts believe. Although the United States remains dominant in most space-related fields -- and owns half the military satellites currently orbiting Earth -- experts say the nation's superiority is diminishing, and many other nations are expanding their civilian and commercial space capabilities at a far faster pace. "We spent many tens of billions of dollars during the Apollo era to purchase a commanding lead in space over all nations on Earth," said NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, who said his agency's budget is down by 20 percent in inflation-adjusted terms since 1992. "We've been living off the fruit of that purchase for 40 years and have not . . . chosen to invest at a level that would preserve that commanding lead." In a recent in-depth study of international space competitiveness, the technology consulting firm Futron of Bethesda found that the globalizing of space is unfolding more broadly and quickly than most Americans realize. "Systemic and competitive forces threaten U.S. space leadership," company president Joseph Fuller Jr. concluded. Six separate nations and the European Space Agency are now capable of sending sophisticated satellites and spacecraft into orbit -- and more are on the way. New rockets, satellites and spacecraft are being planned to carry Chinese, Russian, European and Indian astronauts to the moon, to turn Israel into a center for launching minuscule "nanosatellites," and to allow Japan and the Europeans to explore the solar system and beyond with unmanned probes as sophisticated as NASA's. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 12 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Inherency-Private Sector Now

Obama supports human colonization on Mars but is leaving the job to the private sector

ABC News 7/8 (“Obama ends shuttle era; says he will live to see Man on Mars”, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/07/obama-ends-shuttle-era-says-he-will-live-to- see-man-on-mars-1.html 2011)

Barack Obama was eight years old when Neil Armstrong made his “one small step for Man” on the face of the Moon, and now as President, Obama has told NASA: “been there, done that.” Instead of aiming toward creation of a base on the Moon, as envisioned by his predecessor, President Obama wants to target deep space. “We’ve set a goal to let’s ultimately get to Mars. A good pit stop is an asteroid,” the President explained at a townhall meeting this week. “Let’s start stretching the boundaries so we’re not doing the same thing over and over again, but rather let’s start thinking about what’s the next horizon, what’s the next frontier out there.” He was asked about the future of manned space flight less than 48 hours before the final shuttle mission lifted off, carrying a small crew of four aboard the Atlantis to deliver food and supplies to the International Space Station. President Obama issued a written statement praising “thousands of dedicated workers who have poured their hearts and souls into America’s Space Shuttle program over the past three decades.” But the era is over. “It propels us into the next era of our never- ending adventure to push the very frontiers of exploration and discovery in space. We’ll drive new advances in science and technology,” the statement read. But it will not be any time soon. “In order to do that,” the President told the townhall, “we’re actually going to need some technological breakthroughs that we don’t have yet.” As for Americans space for the next decade or two he said, “Let’s allow the private sector to get in so that they can, for example, send these low-Earth orbit vehicles into space and we may be able to achieve a point in time where those of you who are just dying to go into space, you can buy a ticket, and a private carrier can potentially take you up there, while the government focuses on the big breakthroughs that require much larger investments and involve much greater risk.” Under the Obama plan, the target dates seem light years away. "By the mid 2030’s,” the President announced at the Kennedy Space Center last year, ”I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow and I expect to be around to see it."

A lack of funding is preventing a successful mission to Mars-funding is absolutely necessary

Herath 4/8 (Anuradha, Space Daily, “Getting to Mars means stopping and landing”, Lexis Nexis, 2011)

Since then, however, NASA has been undergoing budget cuts that will have an impact on various programs, including those that deal with designing spacecraft for long-distance flights. "I do think NASA has decided to take a step back and look at a broad range of technology investments to enable future space exploration beyond our own Earth orbit," said Engelund. Some of those cuts will most likely make its way to the Mars program and determine if and when humans will be able to explore the Red Planet. "Unfortunately, development is closely tied to budget," said Ayanna Howard, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering and the chair of the robotics doctoral program at the Georgia Institute of Technology. "If sufficient funding is made available, then scientists (and) engineers should be able to develop and integrate the required EDL components necessary for human Mars missions within the next 30 years. If not enough resources are allocated, this timeline might not be feasible." Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 13 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Solvency**

1ac- Solvency 1/4

The costs of Mars colonization are high enough that governmental sponsorship is necessary to solve—with governmental support we already have the tech to solve and populate the planet. Private corporations, groups, or individuals can’t solve

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB If government sponsorship is available, the technological means required for immigration on a significant scale are essentially available today. In fig. 2 we see one version of such a concept that could be used to transport immigrants to Mars. An Shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle lifts 145 tonnes (A Saturn V had about this same capacity) to low Earth orbit, then a nuclear thermal rocket (NTR, such as was demonstrated in the USA in the 1960's) stage with an Isp of 900 s hurls a 70 tonne "habcraft" onto a 7 month trajectory to Mars. Arriving at Mars, the habcraft uses its biconic shell to aerobrake, and then parachutes and lands on its own sets of methane/oxygen engines. The habcraft is 8 meters in diameter and includes four complete habitation decks, for a total living area of 200 m2, allowing it to adequately house 24 people in space and on Mars. Expansion area is available in the fifth (uppermost) deck after the cargo it contains is unloaded upon arrival. Fig. 2. An NTR augmented heavy lift launch vehicle, capable of transporting 24 colonists 1-way to the Red Planet. Thus in a single booster launch, 24 people, complete with their housing and tools, can be transported one way from Earth to Mars. Now let us assume that starting in 2030 AD, an average of four such boosters are launched every year from Earth. If we then make various reasonable demographic assumptions, the population curve for Mars can be computed. The results are shown in fig. 3. Examining the graph, we see that with this level of effort (and the technology frozen at late 20th Century levels forever), the rate of human population growth of Mars in the 21st Century would be about 1/5th that experienced by colonial America in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Fig. 3. Colonization of Mars compared to North America. Analysis assumes 100 immigrants/year starting in 2030, increasing at 2% annual rate, 50/50 male/female. All immigrants are between ages 20 and 40. Average of 3.5 children to an ideal Martian family. Mortality rates are 0.1% per year between ages 0 and 59, 1% between ages 60 and 79, 10% per year for those over 80. This in itself is a very significant result. What it means is that the distance to Mars and the transportation challenge that it implies is not a major obstacle to the initiation of a human civilization on the Red Planet. Rather the key questions become those of resource utilization, growing food, building housing, and manufacturing all sorts of useful goods on the surface of Mars. Moreover the projected population growth rate, 1/5th that of Colonial America, while a bit slow, is significant on a historical scale, and assuming a cost of $1 billion per launch, the $4 billion per year program cost could be sustained for some time by any major power on Earth that cared to plant the seeds of its posterity on Mars. However, with a cost per launch of about $1 billion, the cost per immigrant would be $40 million. Such a price might be affordable to governments (for a time), but not to individuals or private groups. If Mars is ever to benefit from the dynamic energy of large numbers of immigrants motivated by personal choice to seek to make their mark in a new world, the transportation fee will have to drop a lot lower than this. Let us therefore examine an alternative model to see how low it is likely to drop. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 14 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Solvency 2/4

Mars is could be colonized by the United States with our present technology at less than 20 percent of NASA’s current budget. It contains all of the resources necessary for advanced civilization to thrive

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Mars has what it takes. It's far enough away to free its colonists from intellectual, legal, or cultural domination by the old world, and rich enough in resources to give birth to a new. The Red Planet may appear at first glance to be a desert, but beneath its sands are oceans of water in the form of permafrost, enough in fact (if it were melted and Mars' terrain were smoothed out) to cover the entire planet with an ocean several hundred meters deep. Mars' atmosphere is mostly carbon-dioxide, providing enormous supplies of the two most important biological elements in a chemical form from which they can be directly taken up and incorporated into plant life. Mars has nitrogen too, both as a minority constituent in its atmosphere (three percent) and probably as nitrate beds in its soil as well. For the rest, all the metals, silicon, sulfur, phosphorus, inert gases and other raw materials needed to create not only life but an advanced technological civilization can readily be found on Mars. The United States has, today, all the technology needed to send humans to Mars. If a "travel light and live off the land" strategy such as the Mars Direct plan were adopted, then the first human exploration mission could be launched within 10 years at a cost per year less than 20 percent of NASA's existing budget. Once humans have reached Mars, bases could rapidly be established to support not only exploration, but experimentation to develop the broad range of civil, agricultural, chemical and industrial engineering techniques required to turn the raw materials of Mars into food, propellant, ceramics, plastics, metals, wires, structures, habitats, etc. As these techniques are mastered, Mars will become capable of supporting an ever-increasing population, with an expanding division of labor, capable of mounting engineering efforts on an exponentially increasing scale. Once the production infrastructure is in place, populating Mars will not be a problem — under current medical conditions an immigration rate of 100 people per year would produce population growth on Mars in the 21st century comparable to that which occured in Colonial America in the 17th. Within a century, an engineering capability could be created on Mars with the capability to literally transform the planet, if not to a fully Earth-like environment, at least to the warm, wet conditions of Mars'primitive past, making a desert world into a home for a new spectrum of descendants of terrestrial life. Mars is remote and can be settled. The fact that Mars can be settled and altered defines it as the New World that can create the basis for a positive future for terrestrial humanity for the next several centuries. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 15 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Solvency 3/4

Mars has the best structures and resources to guarantee long-term survival of human civilization and successful colonization of space

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Over time, the base will transform itself into a small town. The high cost of transportation between Earth and Mars will provide a strong financial incentive to find astronauts willing to extend their surface stay beyond the basic one and a half year tour of duty, to four years, six years, and more. Experiments have already been done showing that plants can be grown in greenhouses filled with CO2, at Martian pressures; the Martian settlers will thus be able to set up large inflatable greenhouses to provide the food required to feed an expanding resident population. Mobile microwave units will be used to extract water from Mars' abundant permafrost, supporting such agriculture and making possible the manufacture of large amounts of brick and concrete, the key materials required to build large pressurized structures. While the base will start as an interconnected network of Mars Direct style "tuna can" habitats, by its second decade the settlers could live in brick-and concrete-built pressurized domains the size of shopping malls. Not too long afterwards, the expanding local industrial activity will make possible a vast expansion in living space by manufacturing large supplies of high-strength plastics like kevlar and spectra that will allow the creation of inflatable domes encompassing Sun-lit pressurized areas up to 100 meters in diameter. Each new reactor landed will add to the power supply, as will locally produced solar panels and windmills. However because Mars has been volcanically active in the recent geological past, it is also highly probable that hot underground hydrothermal reservoirs exist on the Red Planet. Once such reservoirs are found, they can be used to supply the settlers with abundant supplies of both water and geothermal power. As more people steadily arrive and stay longer before they leave, the population of the town will grow. In the course of things, children will be born, and families raised on Mars, the first true colonists of a new branch of human civilization.

Mars Direct style colonization is possible to carry out within a decade and leads to constant colonization of the planet

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Some have said that a human mission to Mars is a venture for the far future, a task for "the next generation." Such a point of view has absolutely no basis in fact. On the contrary, the United States has in hand, today, all the technologies required for undertaking an aggressive, continuing program of human Mars exploration, with the first piloted mission reaching the red planet Mars within a decade. We do not need to build giant spaceships embodying futuristic technologies in order to go to Mars. We can reach the Red Planet with relatively small spacecraft launched directly to Mars by boosters embodying the same technology that carried astronauts to the Moon more than a quarter-century ago. The key to success comes from following a "travel light and live off the land" strategy similar to that which has well-served terrestrial explorers for centuries. The plan to approach the Red Planet in this way is called "Mars Direct." Here's how the Mars Direct plan works. At an early launch opportunity, for example 2005, a single heavy-lift booster with a capability equal to that of the Saturn V used during the Apollo program, is launched off Cape Canaveral and uses its upper stage to throw a 40 tonne unmanned payload onto a trajectory to Mars. Arriving at Mars eight months later, it uses friction between its aeroshield and Mars' atmosphere to brake itself into orbit around Mars, and then lands with the help of a parachute. This payload is the Earth Return Vehicle (ERV), and it flies out to Mars with its two methane/oxygen driven rocket propulsion stages unfueled. It also has with it six tonnes of liquid hydrogen cargo, a 100 kilowatt nuclear reactor mounted in

Continued 1/2…. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 16 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Solvency 4/4

Continued 2/2…..

the back of a methane/oxygen driven light truck, a small set of compressors and an automated chemical processing unit, and a few small scientific rovers. As soon as landing is accomplished, the truck is telerobotically driven a few hundred meters away from the site, and the reactor is deployed to provide power to the compressors and chemical processing unit. The hydrogen brought from Earth can be quickly reacted with the Martian atmosphere, which is 95% carbon dioxide gas (CO2), to produce methane and water, and this eliminates the need for longterm storage of cryogenic hydrogen on the planet's surface. The methane so produced is liquefied and stored, while the water is electrolyzed to produce oxygen, which is stored, and hydrogen, which is recycled through the methanator. Ultimately these two reactions (methanation and water electrolysis) produce 24 tonnes of methane and 48 tonnes of oxygen. Since this is not enough oxygen to burn the methane at its optimal mixture ratio, an additional 36 tonnes of oxygen is produced via direct dissociation of Martian CO2. The entire process takes 10 months, at the conclusion of which a total of 108 tonnes of methane/oxygen bipropellant will have been generated. This represents a leverage of 18:1 of Martian propellant produced compared to the hydrogen brought from Earth needed to create it. Ninety-six tonnes of the bipropellant will be used to fuel the ERV, while 12 tonnes are available to support the use of high-powered, chemically fueled long-range ground vehicles. Large additional stockpiles of oxygen can also be produced, both for breathing and for turning into water by combination with hydrogen brought from Earth. Since water is 89% oxygen (by weight), and since the larger part of most foodstuffs is water, this greatly reduces the amount of life-support consumables that need to be hauled from Earth. The propellant production having been successfully completed, in 2007 two more boosters lift off the Cape and throw their 40 tonne payloads towards Mars. One of the payloads is an unmanned fuel factory/ERV just like the one launched in 2005, the other is a habitation module containing a crew of four, a mixture of whole food and dehydrated provisions sufficient for three years, and a pressurized methane/oxygen driven ground rover. On the way out to Mars, artificial gravity can be provided to the crew by extending a tether between the habitat and the burnt out booster upper stage, and spinning the assembly. Upon arrival, the manned craft drops the tether, aerobrakes, and then lands at the 2005 landing site where a fully fueled ERV and fully characterized and beaconed landing site await it. With the help of such navigational aids, the crew should be able to land right on the spot; but if the landing is off course by tens or even hundreds of miles, the crew can still achieve the surface rendezvous by driving over in their rover; if they are off by thousands of miles, the second ERV provides a backup. However assuming the landing and rendezvous at site number one is achieved as planned, the second ERV will land several hundred miles away to start making propellant for the 2009 mission, which in turn will fly out with an additional ERV to open up Mars landing site number three. Thus every other year two heavy lift boosters are launched, one to land a crew, and the other to prepare a site for the next mission, for an average launch rate of just one booster per year to pursue a continuing program of Mars exploration. This is only about 10% of the U.S. launch capability, and is clearly affordable. In effect, this "live off the land" approach removes the manned Mars mission from the realm of mega-fantasy and reduces it to practice as a task of comparable difficulty to that faced in launching the Apollo missions to the Moon. The crew will stay on the surface for one and a half years, taking advantage of the mobility afforded by the high-powered, chemically driven ground vehicles to accomplish a great deal of surface exploration. With a 12-tonne surface fuel stockpile, they have the capability for over 14,000 miles worth of traverse before they leave, giving them the kind of mobility necessary to conduct a serious search for evidence of past or present life on Mars — an investigation key to revealing whether life is a phenomenon unique to Earth or general throughout the universe. Since no one has been left in orbit, the entire crew will have available to them the natural gravity and protection against cosmic rays and solar radiation afforded by the Martian environment, and thus there will not be the strong driver for a quick return to Earth that plagues conventional Mars mission plans based upon orbiting mother-ships with small landing parties. At the conclusion of their stay, the crew returns to Earth in a direct flight from the Martian surface in the ERV. As the series of missions progresses, a string of small bases is left behind on the Martian surface, opening up broad stretches of territory to human cognizance. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 17 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions

Mars is uniquely key for space colonization—humans can live and grow crops on the surface of the planet

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB Mars, on the other hand, has an atmosphere of sufficient density to protect crops grown on the surface against solar flares. On Mars, even during the base building phase, large inflatable greenhouses made of transparent plastic protected by thin hard-plastic ultra-violet and abrasion resistant geodesic domes could be readily deployed, rapidly creating large domains for crop growth. Even without the problems of solar flares and a month-long diurnal cycle, such simple greenhouses would be impractical on the Moon as they would create unbearably high temperatures. On Mars, in contrast, the strong greenhouse effect created by such domes would be precisely what is necessary to produce a temperate climate inside. Even during the base building phase, domes of this type up to 50 meters in diameter could be deployed on Mars that could contain the 5 psi atmosphere necessary to support humans. If made of high strength plastics such as Kevlar, such a dome could have a safety factor of 4 against burst and weigh only about 4 tonnes, with another 4 tonnes required for its unpressurized Plexiglas shield. In the early years of settlement, such domes could be imported pre-fabricated from Earth. Later on they could be manufactured on Mars, along with larger domes (with the mass of the pressurized dome increasing as the cube of its radius, and the mass of the unpressurized shield dome increasing as the square of the radius: 100 meter domes would mass 32 tonnes and need a 16 tonne Plexiglas shield, etc.). Networks of such 50 to 100 meter domes could rapidly be manufactured and deployed, opening up large areas of the surface to both shirtsleeve human habitation and agriculture. If agriculture only areas are desired, the domes could be made much bigger, as plants do not require more than about 1 psi atmospheric pressure. Once Mars has been partially terraformed however, with the creation of a thicker CO2 atmosphere via regolith outgassing, the habitation domes could be made virtually to any size, as they would not have to sustain a pressure differential between their interior and exterior. The point, however, is that in contrast to colonists on any other known extraterrestrial body, Martian colonists will be able to live on the surface, not in tunnels, and move about freely and grow crops in the light of day. Mars is a place where humans can live and multiply to large numbers, supporting themselves with products of every description made out of indigenous materials. Mars is thus a place where an actual civilization, not just a mining or scientific outpost, can be developed. And significantly for interplanetary commerce, Mars and Earth are the only two locations in the solar system where humans will be able to grow crops for export.

Mars key- similar processes to earth

Starobin and McClare, 2004 [Project coordinators for researchers and media specialists at NASA, “Sibling Rivalry: A Mars/Earth Comparison.” 4/21/2004, Online, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0422earthmars.html#top] /WFI-MB Compare the following images. It should become immediately apparent that there are similar processes at work on both planets. These are pictures of dust storms appearing on Mars and Earth respectively. In the more muted image we an expanding cloud of particles—a vast dust storm blowing off the North Pole of Mars. With no apparent liquid water cycle on the surface, Martian dust storms are tremendously significant in terms of understanding planetary processes. On that planet, dust acts as a principal conveyor of heat throughout the climate system, where water principally has that job on Earth. By comparison, the similarly shaped but colorful Earth storm comes from a remarkably successful instrument called SeaWiFS. In it we see huge clouds of dust trailing off the Sahara desert, blooming like a particulate flower across the mid-Atlantic. These comparisons are interesting because they highlight how the rules of nature function similarly even on places in the universe where their resulting effects might be significantly different. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 18 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions

Mars exploration is critical, most likely place to find life and water

Levine, 4/12/2011 (Joel, Senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, “The Exploration of Mars by humans: Why Mars? Why Humans?” Online, MB) Why Mars? One of the major questions in all of science is whether there is/was life outside of the Earth. After Earth, Mars is probably the most likely abode for life in the Solar System. Is there life on Mars today? Was there life on early Mars? If so, what is the structure and chemical composition of this life? Is it similar to life on our planet? Answering these questions is a very challenging task for robotic missions to Mars. Today, 35 years after the Viking landing on Mars, some life scientists are still debating the results and interpretation of the Viking life detection experiments. The discovery and analysis of life outside the Earth is a very challenging endeavor and requires the presence of human explorers/scientists for unambiguous results. It is generally believed that Mars has experienced catastrophic climate change over its 4.6 billion year history. Scientists now think that early Mars was more hospital and more Earth-like than present-day Mars. Today, Mars has a very thin atmosphere with a surface pressure of only about six millibars, comparable to the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere at an altitude of about 100,000 feet (For comparison, the surface pressure of the Earth's atmosphere is 1,013 millibars). Early Mars most probably possessed an atmosphere considerably denser than its present-day atmosphere. The surface of present-day Mars is devoid of liquid water. However, photographs of Mars from orbit and from the surface suggest that early in its history Mars possessed abundant and widespread surface liquid water in the form of lakes, rivers and even planetary-scale oceans. What processes or mechanisms caused Mars to experience catastrophic climate change? How did Mars lose the bulk of its atmosphere? How did Mars lose its surface liquid water? Does climate change on Mars portend similar changes on our planet?

Mars is closest to earth, most similarities of planets around the solar system

Starobin and McClare, 2004 [Project coordinators for researchers and media specialists at NASA, “Sibling Rivalry: A Mars/Earth Comparison.” 4/21/2004, Online, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0422earthmars.html#top] /WFI-MB Scientific understanding is often a matter of making the right comparisons. In terms of studying the Earth, one of the best comparative laboratories exists one planet over—on Mars. In many ways, the study of Mars provides Earth bound scientists with a control set as they look at the processes of climate change, geophysics, and the potential for life beyond our own planet. In January of 2004 NASA landed two extraordinary research probes on Mars as part of an international armada of exploratory vehicles sent to Earth’s dusty neighbor. Much of the technology and scientific methodology built into those missions directly relate to the sophisticated research efforts currently being used to study our own planet. The similarities are striking. Each planet has roughly the same amount of land surface area. Atmospheric chemistry is relatively similar, at least as Earth is compared to the other planets in the solar system. Both planets have large, sustained polar caps and the current thinking is that they’re both largely made of water ice. The sibling planets also show a similar tilt in their rotational axises, affording each of them strong seasonal variability. The neighbors also present strong historic evidence of changes in climate. In these images, we see both planets in true color first, then draped in false color, showing relative altitudes of surface features. Blues indicates low features; reds and whites indicate high features. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 19 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions

Mars key—water likely

Starobin and McClare, 2004 [Project coordinators for researchers and media specialists at NASA, “Sibling Rivalry: A Mars/Earth Comparison.” 4/21/2004, Online, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0422earthmars.html#top] /WFI-MB The following sequence of images compares how evidence of water appears on Earth, offering clues as to where we might look for its presence on Mars. The images shown here depict the mouth of the Colorado River in the Mexican Baja, and the Lena River Delta in Russia. Data for these scenes come from the Landsat 7 spacecraft. The third sequence shows the so-called Distributary Fan on Mars. It’s located just northeast of Holden Crater. As seen from Martian orbit by the Mars Orbiting Camera flying on the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, this dramatic visualization shows us where liquid water likely flowed across the Martian surface sometime in the planet’s past. As experts gain a better understanding of the past and potential future of Martian liquid and surface water, they can refine their understanding about what forces shaped not only Mars, but planets like it—like Earth. In these images, note that the two deltas depicted on Earth begin in color but shift to black and white. This is to emphasize several points. First, we are able to perceive significantly more data about terrestrial features using Earth observing instruments than we presently can around Mars. In other words, we know more about our own home than anywhere else. The second reason we shift the color is to highlight what analogous features might look like on Mars. As you observe the two Earth deltas in black and white and then compare the images to the Martian scene, notice how the surface features look similar—suggesting that some time long ago similar forces may have been at work on both planets. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 20 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Key

Mars is the model location for colonization

Davies and Makuch 10 [Paul, Ph.D from Arizona State University, Dirk Schulze, Ph.D from School of Earth and Environmental Sciences Washington State University, “To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, Nov. 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.html WFI-MZ] There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket technology. In addition to offering humanity a "lifeboat" in the event of a mega-catastrophe, a Mars colony is attractive for other reasons. Astrobiologists agree that there is a fair probability that Mars hosts, or once hosted, microbial life, perhaps deep beneath the surface (Lederberg and Sagan 1962; Levin 2010; Levin and Straat 1977, 1981; McKay and Stoker 1989; McKay et al. 1996; Baker et al. 2005; Schulze-Makuch et al. 2005, 2008, Darling and Schulze-Makuch 2010; Wierzchos et al. 2010; Mahaney and Dohm 2010). A scientific facility on Mars might therefore be a unique opportunity to study an alien life form and a second evolutionary record, and to develop novel biotechnology therefrom. At the very least, an intensive study of ancient and modern Mars will cast important light on the origin of life on Earth. Mars also conceals a wealth of geological and astronomical data that is almost impossible to access from Earth using robotic probes. A permanent human presence on Mars would open the way to comparative planetology on a scale unimagined by any former generation. In the fullness of time, a Mars base would offer a springboard for human/robotic exploration of the outer solar system and the asteroid belt. Finally, establishing a permanent multicultural and multinational human presence on another world would have major beneficial political and social implications for Earth, and serve as a strong unifying and uplifting theme for all humanity. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 21 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Key

Mars is self-sufficient

Than 5 [Ker, Staff writer for Space.com, “The Homestead Project: Making a Mars Settlement a Reality”, 8-10-05, http://www.space.com/1419-homestead-project-making-mars-settlement-reality.html WFI-MZ] According to the plans, the settlement will rely on a curious blend of old and new technology: it will be built with the aid of robots and run on nuclear energy, but will utilize materials and building techniques reminiscent of earlier centuries on earth. She's a brick house Designs call for large masonry arches and vaulted ceilings and domed skylights built with bricks baked from Martian soil and stones cut from Martian quarries. Bruce Mackenzie, a co-founder of the group and a former member of the National Space Society's board of directors, has been preaching the benefits of brick as an ideal building material for a Martian settlement for years. "There are a number of ways you can make it, including just scooping up the soil, putting it in a mold, and compressing and heating it," he said. "You can also melt it and make glass, and it can be glued together." Brick is also easy to manufacture, Mackenzie said, and quality control for brick is not critical the way it is for other materials like fiberglass. Additional materials--such as steel, aluminum, ceramic, glass and plastics--will also be needed for the settlement's construction but the group believes these materials can be manufactured using local Martian resources. "The industry and the technology that you need to produce these materials we'll have on hand," said Joseph Palaia, an MIT nuclear engineering graduate student involved in the settlement design. "It's based on last century's industrial engineering technology." Compared to the cramped quarters within space shuttles and the International Space Station, the Martian settlement will be large--approximately 27,000 square feet--and will initially house a dozen settlers. "We're not putting them in a trailer somewhere," said Mark Homnick, another Mars Foundation co-founder and a retired engineer who designed wafer-fabrication plants for Intel. "This thing is roomy and intended for permanent habitation." As more settlers arrive, the site will be expanded and will ultimately be able to accommodate approximately 100 people, the group said. The settlement will be contained within an artificial atmosphere and pressurized using gases found on Mars like carbon, nitrogen and argon, the group said. Oxygen will be stripped from water molecules using electrolysis and will also added to the mix. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 22 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Possible

Colonizing space will be successful

McLane 11 [James C. McLane III is a former NASA engineer and associate fellow at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2-6-11, http://www.lexisnexis.com.dml.regis.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/? WFI-JG] We can establish a human outpost on Mars in our generation, and reputable scientists are finally getting on board with the idea. Risky though it may be, we have the technology to place a person on the Red Planet. But, if NASA demands that the Mars explorer must return to Earth, then the idea becomes more like science fiction, and colonization probably can't be achieved within the lifespan of those now reading this article. For a Mars colony to be a reality within the next 15 or so years, the first traveler would have to live out his or her life as a permanent resident of an alien desert world. That person could eventually be joined by others, but return would not be an option. When we eliminate the requirement to bring the explorer back, we remove a major obstacle to mission practicality. Carrying a special return vehicle with rocket fuel to the surface of Mars, or somehow manufacturing fuel on the planet for a return launch, will not be feasible for decades. Planning is underway for a robotic mission to bring a one- or two-pound sample of Martian soil back to Earth for analysis, but even such a roundtrip mission to retrieve a tiny amount of dirt is a major technical challenge. For a human mission, the life support and resupply would be greatly simplified if it's a one-way trip and there is only one astronaut. In such an expedition, a small person would hold an advantage -- a female astronaut might be preferable -- because smaller bodies make less demand on life-support systems. Perhaps the first mission might consist of two people; maybe even a male/female team. That privileged couple would follow the tradition of creation stories of many earthly religions, becoming more than just historic characters -- they would become legends. The Mars base, with life support, communication and other technical equipment, would be prepositioned on the surface before the first colonist lands and moves in. Every year we would have to supply each human on Mars with about 10,000 Earth pounds of food, water, oxygen, etc. Therefore, the smaller the crew, the better. Robotic expeditions will always be cheaper than sending humans. But if we wait many years before initiating the effort to place a living explorer on Mars, we may never have the nerve to accept the expense or the risk of failure. We'll never be able to justify the cost of a Mars settlement based on potential economic payoffs because the benefits are distant and exotic. It's hard to predict the return from capital investment in things that haven't been tried before. But the builders of the Panama Canal, the U.S. transcontinental railroad and our interstate highway system couldn't have imagined the transforming, long-term benefits that have come from those projects. Such would be the case with the opening of a new frontier on Mars. The Apollo moon landing effort once employed nearly half a million people. Most Americans had a relative or an acquaintance who was, in some way, connected to the effort. The country had mobilized for war on several occasions, but never had it so widely organized to pursue a peaceful goal. It made us proud to be Americans. A Mars colonization program would do the same. It may seem too risky to rely on one astronaut. But on Earth, in many dangerous endeavors -- such as commercial diving -- the practitioners often go it alone. And we may find it hard to imagine that one of our kind could survive the deprivations of a lonely existence on Mars. Yet, solo sailors have been trapped in the Arctic icepack. Research scientists have lived in isolation for months in dark, damp caves. It's apparent that humans can cope with social separation. Some actually seek out and thrive in such environments. Our prehistoric ancestors must have been self-reliant risk takers, quite unlike many modern humans whose lives involve constant cooperative behavior in a safe environment. We seek assistance with even the most trivial of daily challenges. Most people today never have to test the limits of their personal capabilities. Our instinctual survival skills are seldom exercised. The first traveler to Mars will represent the tip of a long spear of human evolution. If there is such a thing as inherited memory, the astronaut may well carry the dreams of our cave-dwelling ancestors who gathered around campfires and puzzled over the bright spot of orange that was Mars wandering across the night sky. To delay colonizing Mars, when after a million years of human progress we finally have the ability to do so, is to reject those amazing qualities that set us apart from all other living creatures. The French writer Antoine de Saint-Exupery said, "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea." In our human family, a yearning to expand into that "endless immensity" -- the sea of the universe -- is strong, and now we just need to build the ship! Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 23 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Possible

Overcoming problems on Mars will be a success

International Business Times 11 [International Business Times, found on LN, 2/11/2011, Online, “NASA draws up plan to ‘colonize’ Mars with corporate help,” WFI-JG] Researchers at NASA have drawn up a plan to make the greatest adventure in the history of the human race possible - sending a human mission to the red planet and, hold your breath, colonize it! And the daring act of "selling" and carving up the red planet will be made possible with the help of corporate bigwigs who will paint the space ships in their logo colors. NASA scientists have said in a research paper that corporate financing is the right way to support a $160-billion project to take human beings to Mars and start a colony there, according to space.com. Joel Levine, a senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, calls is a "revolutionary business proposal" as it removes budgetary bottlenecks that have diluted the Mars mission's focus over the years. And there is more music to the ear: The researchers say the project will generate as many as 500,000 jobs in the U.S. over 10 years in aerospace and manufacturing sectors. The researchers discussed the plan in the book, "The Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet," which was published in December. Corporates could dole out funds for the project in lieu of broadcast rights, merchandize license and various other means of sponsorship. "Perhaps even selling the mineral and land rights on Mars could generate money." Levine says they have made a comprehensive plan. The plan covers "every aspect of a journey to the Red Planet ” the design of the spacecrafts, medical health and psychological issues, the establishment of a Mars base, colonization, and a revolutionary business proposal to overcome the major budgetary obstacles which have prevented the U.S. from sending astronauts to Mars," Levine is quoted in the article. The researchers say a whole lot of practical issues will have to be sorted out to make the colonization real and working. These include procedures to decide who can hold rights to the mineral assets in Mars and other issues like what activities can be taken up in the red planet. They favor setting up an international organization to govern a whole lot of tricky details. There were reports in 2009 that scientists proposed a one-way space voyage scheme for colonizing Mars. In an article titled "To Boldly Go" which was published in the Journal of Cosmology, two scientists argued that the Mars colonization project will work if people just traveled there with no intention to return, like the way the first settlers who came to North America did. Dirk Schulze-Makuch, a Washington State University professor and Paul Davies, a physicist at Arizona State University, said Mars colonization would be a reasonable hedge against likely catastrophes on earth, AP had reported. The scientists believed that the one- way trip could begin in two decades. The exploration of Mars has been an important part of the space exploration programs of the Soviet Union, the United States, Europe, and Japan, says a Wikipedia entry. "Of 38 launches from Earth in an attempt to reach the planet, only 19 succeeded, a success rate of 50%. Twelve of the missions included attempts to land on the surface, but only seven transmitted data after landing." "The U.S. NASA Mars exploration program has had a somewhat better record of success in Mars exploration, achieving success in 13 out of 20 missions launched (a 65% success rate), and succeeding in six out of seven (an 86% success rate) of the launches of Mars landers," it says. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 24 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Colonization possible

Why we can go to Mars

Robert Zubrin 6-28-10 [Robert, Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author, best known for his advocacy of the manned exploration of Mars. He was the driving force behind Mars Direct—a proposal intended to produce significant reductions in the cost and complexity of such a mission, “The case for Mars: the plan to settle the red planet and why we must.” 6-28-2011, http://io9.com/5812255/the-case-for-mars-the-plan-to-settle-the-red-planet-and-why-we- must WFI-JG]

The only meaningful counterargument against launching a humans to Mars initiative is the assertion that we cannot do it. This claim, however, is completely false. We would need a heavy lift launch vehicle (HLV), which we lack, say the opponents, and it would take vast sums and extended periods of time to create one - $36 billion and 12 years, according to the Obama administration's blue-ribbon human spaceflight review panel. This is nonsense. We flew our first heavy lift vehicle, the Saturn V, in 1967, following a 5 year development program during which we had to invent it as we went along. Today we know exactly what to do. As to cost, SpaceX company president Elon Musk testified directly to the panel that he would be willing to develop a 100 tonne to orbit class HLV for a fixed-price contract of $2.5 billion. This claim is very credible, since SpaceX recently developed and flew a 10 tonne to orbit medium lifter for a total program cost of $300 million. Indeed Lockheed Martin, the aerospace giant formerly led by panel chairman Norm Augustine, has designs for HLVs whose development it prices at $4 billion. A human Mars lander would require a huge parachute, the opponents say, much bigger than anything we have used. A large parachute? Please, give me a break. If we could send men to the Moon, we can certainly make a large parachute. Or if we didn't care to do so, we could just use a more modest sized parachute system and complete the landing deceleration using rockets. It takes too long to get to Mars, they say, so we have to delay launching the initiative until we can develop radically more advanced types of space propulsion capable of getting us there much faster. Wrong. Using existing chemical propulsion, we can go from Earth to Mars in 6 months, and in fact the Mars Odyssey spacecraft did exactly that in 2001. Trips of this duration are quite manageable by humans. In fact, it's the standard tour that scores of astronauts and cosmonauts have already performed aboard Russian space station Mir and the ISS. We would need a nuclear reactor to power our base on the Martian surface, they say, and we don't have one. True. But we fielded our first practical nuclear reactor in this country, the one that powered the submarine Nautilus, in 1952, and the laws of physics haven't changed much since. We had nuclear power before we had color TV, passenger jets, or push button telephones. Nukes are 1940s technology. We can certainly build the little one needed to power a Mars base. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 25 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Direct Good

Plan solves for Mars colonization

Robert Zubrin et al, 1991 Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative, pdf, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF In conclusion we find that the Mars Direct architecture provides a simple , robust, cost-effective, and coherent plan for the Space Exploration Initiative. It enables an early commencement of useful SEI operations, and right from the start it conducts missions in such a way as to minimize cost and maximize exploratory return. The Ares booster used by Mars Direct has been shown to be a highly attractive and versatile option for the nation's next heavy lift launch vehicle. The stepped up conjunction class trajectories used in Mars direct are found to minimize crew radiation exposure more effectively than the inefficient, costly, and risky high energy opposition class trajectories that have been the focus of much recent attention. The in-situ propellant production processes used by Mars Direct are found to have an extensive historical and industrial basis, and to already exist in a high state of maturity within certain areas of the space program itself. Such propellant processes have also been shown to be required if substantial surface mobility on Mars is to be achieved. The Mars Direct in-situ processes have also been shown to provide a basis for a very attractive Mars Rover Sample Return precursor mission. Power requirements for the manned Mars Direct propellant production can be met by near term surface nuclear electric systems. We have identified NTR as the advanced propulsion technology that is most compatible with the Mars Direct architecture, and have shown that it provides Mars Direct with a growth path leading in an evolutionary way to an order of magnitude increase in exploratory capability on both the Moon and Mars. We therefore recommend that the Mars Direct architecture in all its phases be made the subject of intense study by the nation's space planning bodies, as a leading option for getting the Space Exploration Initiative off the ground. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 26 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Colonization Efficient

The plan is technologically feasible and cuts cost on future space missions

Makuch and davies ’10 [dirk and paul, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars, October – November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.htmlwfi-kc ] A human mission to Mars is technologically feasible, but hugely expensive requiring enormous financial and political commitments. A creative solution to this dilemma would be a one-way human mission to Mars in place of the manned return mission that remains stuck on the drawing board. Our proposal would cut the costs several fold but ensure at the same time a continuous commitment to the exploration of Mars in particular and space in general. It would also obviate the need for years of rehabilitation for returning astronauts, which would not be an issue if the astronauts were to remain in the low-gravity environment of Mars. We envision that Mars exploration would begin and proceed for a long time on the basis of outbound journeys only. A mission to Mars could use some of the hardware that has been developed for the Moon program. One approach could be to send four astronauts initially, two on each of two space craft, each with a lander and sufficient supplies, to stake a single outpost on Mars. A one-way human mission to Mars would not be a fixed duration project as in the Apollo program, but the first step in establishing a permanent human presence on the planet. The astronauts would be re-supplied on a periodic basis from Earth with basic necessities, but otherwise would be expected to become increasingly proficient at harvesting and utilizing resources available on Mars. Eventually the outpost would reach self-sufficiency, and then it could serve as a hub for a greatly expanded colonization program. There are many reasons why a human colony on Mars is a desirable goal, scientifically and politically. The strategy of one-way missions brings this goal within technological and financial feasibility. Nevertheless, to attain it would require not only major international cooperation, but a return to the exploration spirit and risk-taking ethos of the great period of Earth exploration, from Columbus to Amundsen, but which has nowadays been replaced with a culture of safety and political correctness. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 27 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Now Key

Now is key—NASA needs a new mission

Robert Zubrin 6-28-2011

[Robert, Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author, best known for his advocacy of the manned exploration of Mars. He was the driving force behind Mars Direct—a proposal intended to produce significant reductions in the cost and complexity of such a mission, “The case for Mars: the plan to settle the red planet and why we must.” 6-28-2011, http://io9.com/5812255/the-case-for-mars-the-plan-to-settle-the-red-planet-and-why-we- must WFI-JG] So, the question is, what did NASA have then that it doesn't have now? The answer is Resolution. By resolution, I mean that quality associated with being able to determine what it is you truly want to accomplish, committing to that objective, creating a plan to achieve it, and then doing what is necessary to actually implement that plan. During the Apollo period, that is how America's human spaceflight program operated. The objective was clear – get men to the moon and back by the end of the decade - the commitment to it was absolute. Accordingly, a plan was devised to achieve that goal in accord with that schedule, vehicle designs were created to implement that plan, technologies were developed to enable those vehicles, then the vehicles were built and the missions were flown. The robotic space program also operated in that manner at that time, and continues to do so today. That is why it continues to deliver ever greater achievements. It is not the fact that the unmanned exploration program employs robots that has made it a success. Rather it owes its success to the fact that the people running it are using their brains. In contrast NASA's human spaceflight program has abandoned this rational approach entirely. Instead of designing things to implement plans, it develops things and then tries to find some use for them. It created the Space Shuttle without any clear idea of what it would be for, and thus it has proved to be of very limited value for supporting human space exploration. The International Space Station (ISS) was conceived of for the purpose of giving the Shuttle something to do, but requiring that the Station be built by the Shuttle has vastly increased the Station program costs and risks, over-complexified its design, and limited its size, while burdening it with a nightmare twenty-year assembly launch sequence. In contrast, the simpler yet bigger Skylab was designed and built in 4 years, and launched in 1 day. Moreover, the ISS itself has no rational purpose commensurate with its cost, risk, or multi-decadal preoccupation of the agency's time. The fact that this dismal assessment of the Station's value, while unacknowledged, is generally understood, was made amply clear by the sequel to the February 1, 2003 Columbia disaster. Coming down harshly on the space agency, the accident review committee chairman Admiral Harold Gehman pronounced that "if we are to accept the costs and risks of human spaceflight, we need to have goals worthy of those costs and risks." In response, the Bush administration did not even attempt to make the case that the ISS program met that standard. Instead it launched a new imitative to give NASA human spaceflight program something worthwhile to do, specifically a return to the Moon by 2020.

More affordable means getting there first

Tyson 10 [Peter Tyson editor-in-chief NOVA online, “A one-way trip to Mars, 11-04-2010, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html WFI-JG] More affordably means sooner, endorsers say. McLane insists that one-way is the only approach that offers the chance that we in the current generation could see it happen. Davies agrees: "I just think we're not going to do it—simply for reasons of cost—without making it a one-way mission." Even in 50 years, Davies suspects, neither the financial nor the political wherewithal will exist to send astronauts to Mars to poke around for a short time and then whisk them home again, as we did with the Apollo astronauts. Aldrin worries that if the U.S. doesn't act soon, other countries may end up putting people on the Red Planet sooner than we do. In 2011, Russia plans to send a sample-collecting mission to Phobos, one of the moons of Mars (and, in Aldrin's opinion, the ideal staging point for a colonization of the planet). The so-called Phobos-Grunt mission includes a Chinese satellite. "If we don't shape up what we're doing," Aldrin told me, "we're going to find the Russians clearly leading missions to Mars." Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 28 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Humans Key

Human exploration is uniquely key—multiple reasons

Levine, 4/12/2011 (Joel, Senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, “The Exploration of Mars by humans: Why Mars? Why Humans?” Online, MB) Why humans? Humans are unique scientific explorers and observers. Humans have unique capabilities for performing scientific measurements, observations and sample collecting. Human attributes needed for exploration and scientific discovery include: intelligence, adaptability, agility, dexterity, cognition, patience, problem solving in real-time, in situ analyses -- more science in less time. Humans can obtain previously unobtainable scientific measurements on the surface of Mars. Humans possess the abilities to adapt to new and unexpected situations in new and strange environments, they can make real-time decisions, have strong recognition abilities and are intelligent. Humans can perform detailed and precise measurements of the surface, subsurface and atmosphere while on the surface of Mars with state-of- the-art scientific equipment and instrumentation brought from Earth. The increased laboratory ability on Mars that humans offer would allow for dramatically more scientific return within the established sample return limits. The scientific exploration of Mars by humans would be performed as a synergistic partnership between humans and robotic probes, controlled by the human explorers on the surface of Mars. Robotic probes could explore terrains and features not suitable or too risky for human exploration. Under human control, robotic probes could traverse great distances from the human habitat covering distances/terrain too risky for human exploration and return rock and dust samples for analysis and interpretation to the habitat from great distances. The Apollo experience showed the great value of humans in the scientific exploration and discovery process on other worlds. The unambiguous detection of life past and/or present on Mars and understanding the mechanisms/processes of climate change are best accomplished by human explorers/scientists on the surface of Mars. The human explorer/scientist can adapt to new and unexpected situations that Mars may provide. Robotic and human space exploration have come a long way in the last 50 years since the first human flight of Yuri Gagarin. However, the most exciting role for the human explorer/scientist is just beginning as we start the greatest adventure in human history, the human exploration of the Solar System starting with the Red Planet.

Human exploration is key—too many challenges for robots

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Robotic probes can help out in such a search, but by themselves are completely insufficient (Drake, 2010; Gage 2010; Schmitt 2010). Fossil hunting requires the ability to travel long distances through unimproved terrain, to climb steep slopes, to do heavy work and delicate work, and to exercise very subtle forms of perception and on-the-spot intuition. All of these skills are far beyond the abilities of robotic rovers. Geology and field paleontology requires human explorers, real live rockhounds on the scene (Schmitt 2010). Drilling to reach subsurface hydrothermal environments where extant Martian life may yet thrive will clearly require human explorers as well. Put simply, as far as the question of Martian life is concerned, if we don’t go, we won’t know. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 29 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Colonization Leads to Terraforming

Mars colonization will lead to terraforming of the planet, Mars could be completely habitable in 30 years from start of project

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB If a viable Martian civilization can be established, its population and powers to change its planet will continue to grow. The advantages accruing to such a society of terraforming Mars into a more human- friendly environment are manifest4. Put simply, if enough people find a way to live and prosper on Mars there is no doubt but that sooner or later they will terraform the planet. The feasibility or lack thereof of terraforming Mars is thus in a sense a corollary to the economic viability of the Martian colonization effort. Potential methods of terraforming Mars have been discussed in a number of locations.5,6. In the primary scenario, artificial greenhouse gases such as halocarbons are produced on Mars and released into the atmosphere. The temperature rise induced by the presence of these gases causes CO2 adsorbed in the regolith to be outgassed, increasing the greenhouse effect still more, causing more outgassing, etc. In reference 6 it was shown that a rate of halocarbon production of about 1000 tonnes per hour would directly induce a temperature rise of about 10 K on Mars, and that the outgassing of CO2 caused by this direct forcing would likely raise the average temperature on Mars by 40 to 50 K, resulting in a Mars with a surface pressure over 200 mbar and seasonal incidence of liquid water in the warmest parts of the planet. Production of halocarbons at this rate would require an industrial establishment on Mars wielding about 5000 MW or power supported by a division of labor requiring at least (assuming optimistic application of robotics) 10,000 people. Such an operation would be enormous compared to our current space efforts, but very small compared to the overall human economic effort even at present. It is therefore anticipated that such efforts could commence as early as the mid 21st Century, with a substantial amount of the outgassing following on a time scale of a few decades. While humans could not breath the atmosphere of such a Mars, plants could, and under such conditions increasingly complex types of pioneering vegetation could be disseminated to create soil, oxygen, and ultimately the foundation for a thriving ecosphere on Mars. The presence of substantial pressure, even of an unbreathable atmosphere, would greatly benefit human settlers as only simple breathing gear and warm clothes (i.e. no spacesuits) would be required to operate in the open, and city-sized inflatable structures could be erected (since there would be no pressure differential with the outside world) that could house very large settlements in an open-air shirt-sleeve environment. Nevertheless, Mars will not be considered fully terraformed until its air is breathable by humans. Assuming complete coverage of the planet with photosynthetic plants, it would take about a millennia to put the 120 mbar of oxygen in Mars' atmosphere needed to support human respiration in the open. It is therefore anticipated that human terraformers would accelerate the oxygenation process by artificial technological approaches yet to be determined, with the two leading concepts being those based on either macroengineering (i.e. direct employment of very large scale energy systems such as terrawatt sized fusion reactors, huge space-based reflectors or lasers, etc.) or self reproducing machines, such as Turing machines or nanotechnology. Since such systems are well outside current engineering knowledge it is difficult to provide any useful estimate of how quickly they could complete the terraforming job. However in the case of self-replicating machines the ultimate source of power would be solar, and this provides the basis for an upper bound to system performance. Assuming the whole planet is covered with machines converting sunlight to electricity at 30% efficiency, and all this energy is applied to releasing oxygen from metallic oxides, a 120 mbar oxygen atmosphere could be created in about 30 years. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 30 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 31 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency Extensions- Mars Direct Cheap and Possible

A “Mars Direct” approach to colonization could establish our first outposts within a decade for only 50 billion

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Such is the basic Mars Direct plan. In 1990, when it was first put forward, it was viewed as too radical for NASA to consider seriously, but over the past couple of years with the encouragement of former NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Mike Griffin and current NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, the group at Johnson Space Center in charge of designing human Mars missions decided to take a good hard look at it. They produced a detailed study of a Design Reference Mission based on the Mars Direct plan but scaled up about a factor of two in expedition size compared to the original concept. They then produced a cost estimate for what a Mars exploration program based upon this expanded Mars Direct approach would cost. Their result: $50 billion, with the estimate produced by the same costing group that assigned a $400 billion price tag to the traditional cumbersome approach to human Mars exploration embodied in NASA's 1989 "90-Day Report." In essence, by taking advantage of the most obvious local resource available on Mars — its atmosphere — the plan allows us to accomplish a manned Mars mission with what amounts to a lunar-class transportation system. By eliminating any requirement to introduce a new order of technology and complexity of operations beyond those needed for lunar transportation to accomplish piloted Mars missions, the plan can reduce costs by an order of magnitude and advance the schedule for the human exploration of Mars by a generation. 5Exploring Mars requires no miraculous new technologies, no orbiting spaceports, and no gigantic interplanetary space cruisers. We can establish our first small outpost on Mars within a decade. We and not some future generation can have the eternal honor of being the first pioneers of this new world for humanity. All that's needed is present-day technology, some 19th century industrial chemistry, and a little bit of moxie. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 32 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Advantages**

**Alien Contact Advantage**

1ac- Alien Contact Advantage 1/2

Colonization makes contact with Alien life possible

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB Interplanetary exploration aside, there is no certainty that we will survive the gathering storm on Earth of the man made challenges to our survival. If we do endure, it is likely that we will eventually meet other intelligent technological civilizations in this increasingly apparent life friendly universe that we live in if we haven’t already done so. Hopefully these civilizations will have solved once and for all many of the dilemmas currently facing humanity. Clearly any civilization that mastered the technological challenges of interstellar travel will most likely be much older and far more advanced than us in many ways that we cannot even conceive. They will also likely be much wiser in how they utilize their technologies. When we begin a dialogue with them, perhaps our first order of business should be to find out how they managed to get beyond the civilization threatening technological adolescent stage in which we on Earth are now engaged. What might such a civilization be like? Because they will likely have evolved under very different circumstances and timeframes, they would certainly have taken evolutionary pathways very different from us. Once they reached the technological stage they would have many different alternatives for future evolutionary growth. Some might be based on unpredictable natural events but eventually most will be accomplished by conscious evolution. It is very easy to fall into a trap by speculating why we have not already encountered signs of extra-terrestrial civilizations using Fermi’s 50 year old paradox “Where is everybody?”. Anthropic assumptions and arguments must be evaluated with considerable caution and thought. As I (Edgar Mitchell) have often pointed out in my lectures, 140 years ago, my great grandparents migrated from Georgia to Texas in a covered wagon. The automobile, trains, airplanes, indoor plumbing, electric lights, telephone, radio, electronics, etc. had not yet been invented. And, yet, one hundred and forty years later I went to the moon. The rate of technological advancement in such a short period of time has been absolutely astounding. Where might we be in ten thousand, one hundred thousand, or even several million years hence? If we were somehow able to transport modern technologies back just two thousand years, what would that ancient society make of it? What if we went back ten thousand years and tried to explain to a caveman the operating principles and purposes of the international space station (ISS)? Clearly our ancient ancestors would not have any basis for understanding what we were trying to communicate. To take this to the extreme, how about trying to explain the ISS to an ant colony? Perhaps this analogy is the appropriate one with regard to advanced extra-terrestrial civilizations. UFO lore aside, one of the common arguments that many use claiming why we have not yet been visited by intelligent civilizations is due to the difficulty in traversing the tremendous distances in interstellar space. Our current understanding of nature tells us that the maximum velocity that any object can reach is the speed of light in a vacuum or 186,000 miles per second. At that rate at trip to the nearest star system Alpha Centauri, would take about 4.2 years. Clearly reaching that speed is currently well beyond the realm of possibilities for humankind. At best we can currently achieve is 1/1000 of light speed so at that speed it would take us 4,200 years to reach this destination. By extrapolation and linear projections using today’s technologies, perhaps in several hundred years we will have advanced our technologies to the point where we can reach a reasonable fraction of the speed of light.. At 1/10 the speed of light a trip would only take 42 years or so. 1ac- Alien Contact Advantage 2/2 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 33 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Next is the impact Aliens would be sweet, have powerful technologies and a transcendent ethic of hospitality

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB Let us now imagine an alien technological civilization thousands or millions of years beyond our own. If we are within several hundred years of having the capabilities described above, what might an advanced civilization be like? Would they have revealed nature’s secrets such that they could traverse the void of space by faster than light travel? Could travel to Alpha Centauri be reduced to a matter of a few days similar to today’s trip duration to the moon? Could that be accomplished by manipulating gravity or even the speed of light itself, perhaps by warping space or traversing it through wormholes, or, even by some other means we cannot even begin to imagine? Futurist and science fiction author, Arthur C Clarke, is often quoted “With any highly advanced technological civilization, their technologies would seem like magic to us.” To think that we have already uncovered all of nature’s secrets is certainly sheer folly. Given the incredible multitude of stars, the vastness of space, and the possibility of several thousand space faring civilizations thousands to millions of years older than us in our galaxy alone, can there be any doubt that sooner or later we will finally meet them? What might be the consciousness, ethics, morality and values of such a civilization? Certainly nature requires no special morality or ethics to tap into and utilize its secrets. Whatever is built into the belief systems of the discoverer will be utilized when these capabilities are finally unveiled and understood. These belief systems can be highly evolved and saintly or war-like and demonic; either way will be fine with nature for it takes no sides. Humans, for example, have uncovered many of the secrets of unleashing the energy stored within atoms. This knowledge can and has been used for peaceful purposes such as the generation of electricity or it has also been used to build nuclear weapons which can destroy us all. Certainly for humans, our morals, values and ethics have not kept pace with our technological prowess. Perhaps for these reasons, by necessity, extra-terrestrial civilizations have survived and evolved far beyond technological adolescence and have developed the technologies for inter-stellar travel because they have evolved to higher states of consciousness. If so, they will likely have recognized the need to live in harmony with nature and all that that implies. This would likely include highly evolved self-discipline, ethics, and universal spiritual values first less they would have otherwise long ago destroyed themselves by their command of such powerful technologies.

And the aff will solve Mars colonization leads to discover of alien life

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Reason 1: For the Knowledge. During the summer of 1996, NASA scientists revealed a rock ejected from Mars by meteoric impact which showed strong evidence of life on Mars in the distant past (McKay et al., 1996). If this discovery could be confirmed by actual finds of fossils on the Martian surface, it would show that the origin of life is not unique to the Earth, and thus by implication reveal a universe that is filled with life and probably intelligence as well. From the point of view of humanity learning its true place in the universe, this would be the most important scientific enlightenment since Copernicus. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 34 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Alien Contact Adv Extensions

If we spot aliens on mars we will ethically proceed, there wont be an alien genocide or harms to aliens

Kramer ‘11 [William, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Political Science, Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, Colonizing mars—An opportunity for reconsidering bioethical standards and obligations to future generations, 3/2/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328711000498 wfi-kc] At a minimum, generally accepted existing ethical standards should not cease once we are outside of Earth's atmosphere; space is our environment and extends to as far as we can undertake any action that has any effect. Both classic and more futures-oriented thought agree that ethical consideration should also be given beyond the immediate human family, to sapient species at a minimum, if for no other reason than our actions are a reflection of our self perception. In that extraterrestrial entities are yet to be discovered and, if existing, likely evolved under conditions significantly different than terrestrial life, we cannot pre-conclude that they exist below some hypothetical threshold of sapience or sentience referenced on Earth. We cannot, therefore, exclude them from ethical consideration. Accordingly, we should proceed with exploration with extreme caution and opt for passive observation and remote sensing for signs of possible life, not harming such life in an effort to demonstrate its existence. If life is detected by such means, we should continue close and extended observation coupled with ethical analysis and open public dialog. If ethical consideration is to be withheld or limited, such a decision should be made only after such a process and should require documented justification.

We will follow ethics and the UN’s outer space treaty applies to this

Kramer ‘11 [William, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Political Science, Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies, Colonizing mars—An opportunity for reconsidering bioethical standards and obligations to future generations, 3/2/11, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328711000498 wfi-kc] Regardless of the specific model of representation, in that extraterrestrial sites that may be home to the entities here addressed lie outside any national jurisdiction, the “Outer Space Treaty” and similar United Nations instruments would apply [32]. As such, representation, whether ad litem or other, would best be international in membership and most productive if inclusive of a diversity of human cultures and value systems. It is significant that IETI includes futurists and artists in addition to scientists, recognizing both the legitimacy and need for their participation and vision in addition to scientific and political perspectives. The framework of the United Nations would provide a likely home for such a function, especially in consideration of the UN's established legal status among nations and its existing Office for Outer Space Affairs. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 35 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Colonization Advantage**

1ac- Colonization Advantage 1/3

Extinction is coming, colonization of mars is necessary for survival- First, The sun will expand and destroy all life on earth, colonization key to survival

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB There are many other reasons to travel to other worlds and beyond besides the urge to explore the unknown. One is the obvious long term motivation to become an inter-stellar space faring civilization. At some point in the distant future we will have no choice but to leave our home world. Our sun, already a middle aged star, is powered by fusing hydrogen in the nuclear inferno at its core. As the remaining fuel is consumed, the sun will continue to expand in size and with it the intensity of the radiation increasing at the planets. Already the sun’s output is 15% greater than it was a few billion years ago and eventually it will destroy all life on the planet. The long term prognosis is that the sun will expand to such a large degree that in due course it will cause our oceans to boil away into the vacuum of space leaving an uninhabitable desert wasteland behind.

And, colonization of Mars is essential to preserve human diversity and is key to survival of the human race

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Consider the probable fate of humanity in the 21st century under two conditions — with a Martian frontier and without it. In the 21st Century, without a Martian frontier, there is no question that human diversity will decline severely. Already, in the late 20th century, advanced communication and transportation technologies have eroded the healthy diversity of human cultures on Earth, and this tendency can only accelerate in the 21st. On the other hand, if the Martian frontier is opened, then this same process of technological advance will also enable us to establish a new branch of human culture on Mars and eventually worlds beyond. The precious diversity of humanity can thus be preserved on a broader field, but only on a broader field. One world will be just too small a domain to allow the preservation of the diversity needed not just to keep life interesting, but to assure the survival of the human race. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 36 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Furthermore, Colonizing mars is solves a myriad of impacts including nuclear war, eco- collapse, supervolcanoes, global warming, and biological warfare

Makuch and davies ’10 [dirk and paul, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars, October – November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.htmlwfi-kc ] There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket technology.

And, space colonization solves extinction from resource depletion and population growth

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB The visionary Buckminister Fuller often referred to our planet as “Spaceship Earth”. It was his firm belief that we must all work together as a crew of Spaceship Earth if we are to survive let alone continue to thrive upon it, along with all other living creatures that share our beautiful planet. The available evidence suggests that global population growth fueled by our modern technologies of the last 100 years have created an unsustainable trajectory for all life on the planet. Our unprecedented consumption of nonrenewable resources and increasingly strong indications of run-away climate change have been greatly exacerbated by human activity of the last century. Together these factors suggest that we may soon be facing our first mass extinction event due to human activities. All previous extinction events have resulted from natural causes such as large meteor impacts or super-volcanic eruptions. Are we about to experience one due to our own inattention and misperceptions of how nature has maintained Earth’s environment over its entire history by our propensity to interrupt her natural processes on a massive scale? Exploiting resources of the solar system, creating colonies in space, exploration of other planets, establishing colonies on them and eventually travel to other star systems offers us many lessons for a sustainable Earth although initially on a much smaller scale. Of necessity space colonies will have to be mostly self sufficient because of the vast distances from Earth. Aside from the long travel times to reach these remote outposts, the associated costs of shipping supplies and replacements parts will be prohibitively expensive. Our space colonies will be forced to live as close to self sufficiency as possible by utilizing local resources whenever practical. They will also have to make extensive use of recycling, reusing discarded materials and reducing consumption on a scale that has here-to-for been unprecedented. In a very real sense, space colonies will have to emulate consciously what nature has been doing for billions of years on Earth.

Finally, Mars is the most viable location for space colonization—multiple reasons Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 37 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Beyond the Moon lies Mars, the next great step in humanity's outward migration into space. Mars is hundreds of times farther away than the Moon, but it offers a much greater prize. Indeed, uniquely among the extraterrestrial bodies of our solar system, Mars is endowed with all the resources needed to support not only life but the development of a technological civilization. In contrast to the comparative desert of the Earth's Moon, Mars possesses oceans of water frozen into its soil as permafrost, as well as vast quantities of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen, all in forms readily accessible to those clever enough to use them. Additionally, Mars has experienced the same sorts of volcanic and hydrologic processes that produced a multitude of mineral ores on Earth. Virtually every element of significant interest to industry is known to exist on the Red Planet. With its 24-hour day/night cycle and an atmosphere thick enough to shield its surface against solar flares, Mars is the only extraterrestrial planet that will readily allow large-scale greenhouses lit by natural sunlight. Mars can be settled. For our generation and many that will follow, Mars is the New World. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 38 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Colonization Advantage- Extinction Coming

Mars colonization is essential for survival

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB As a species we have always had an incredible curiosity and because of it the thought of exploration and exploitation of new frontiers has always excited our imagination and motivated our efforts. We now stand on the threshold of becoming a space faring civilization. Our very survival certainly for the long term depends upon it and probably for the near term as well. Throughout our history, we have never been able to predict the perils nor the benefits of exploration but in every case humanity has always prevailed over all obstacles and the rewards it has reaped have always far exceeded our expectations. This certainly will be the case with the exploration of Mars and the other planets and the moons of our solar system. Initially these will be purely exploratory missions but eventually exploration will turn to colonization. Ultimately as we continue to develop and our technological capabilities even the stars will be open to our explorations. Will humanity be prepared for the greatest discoveries of the history of our civilization? Will we find other intelligent civilizations far older and incredibly superior than our technological capabilities and collective wisdom? We end with speculation on the values, ethics and consciousness of these civilizations and lessons they may hold for the future of humanity.

Mars colonization is k2 surviving a long term and provides better resources and benefits than earth does

Makuch and davies ’10 [dirk and paul, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars, October – November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.htmlwfi-kc ] There are several reasons that motivate the establishment of a permanent Mars colony. We are a vulnerable species living in a part of the galaxy where cosmic events such as major asteroid and comet impacts and supernova explosions pose a significant threat to life on Earth, especially to human life. There are also more immediate threats to our culture, if not our survival as a species. These include global pandemics, nuclear or biological warfare, runaway global warming, sudden ecological collapse and supervolcanoes (Rees 2004). Thus, the colonization of other worlds is a must if the human species is to survive for the long term. The first potential colonization targets would be asteroids, the Moon and Mars. The Moon is the closest object and does provide some shelter (e.g., lava tube caves), but in all other respects falls short compared to the variety of resources available on Mars. The latter is true for asteroids as well. Mars is by far the most promising for sustained colonization and development, because it is similar in many respects to Earth and, crucially, possesses a moderate surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water and carbon dioxide, together with a range of essential minerals. Mars is our second closest planetary neighbor (after Venus) and a trip to Mars at the most favorable launch option takes about six months with current chemical rocket technology. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 39 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Colonization Advantage- Extinction Coming

Mars Saves us from earth destruction—asteroids will kill us

Redcolony.com, 2000 (NQA, Why colonize mars, http://www.redcolony.com/features.php? name=whycolonizemars) My personal favorite reason for colonizing Mars is that it offers a backup plan for humanity. Every few million years, the Earth tends to be wiped clear of almost all life in a globally catastrophic event (read: asteroid collision). An asteroid the size of Dactyl could wipe us off the face of the Earth. Who knows how close we've already come to blowing ourselves to smithereens. A colony on Mars is not far off, but the question remains: could that colony be self-sufficient? The time will come when Mars will not need Earth to sustain it, much like the United States found itself long before the Revolutionary War. Does that mean life will be self-sufficient? No. We may be able to grow our own food on the planet in greenhouses, but what about wild animals, and birds, and fish, and rivers, and oceans? Terraforming, then, becomes a necessity in more than one way. Terraforming is the process of creating another Earth, and you can find out more about it by reading the various terraforming articles on this site. The general consensus is terraforming is necessary for global colonization and global colonization is necessary for terraforming. The two go hand-in-hand.

Colonization key to survival—resources and ecosystem destruction make life on earth unsustainable

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB More immediate concerns for inter-planetary travel but perhaps less well known by most of humanity are the issues associated with insuring a sustainable future for our civilization. Much of our planet’s non renewable resources such as ores and precious metals will not last forever especially with our already large and exponentially growing population. Mining and refining these ores in space for shipment to Earth will be necessary within short order if we are to maintain and broaden our current standard of living on the planet. Establishment of space colonies will also teach us much about sustainability issues and many will have direct applicability to the future of Earth. Until now our planet has had a thriving ecosystem because nature has long ago evolved and fine tuned Earth’s biogeochemical processes to maintain its long term stability. That stability is now being threatened by our own doing.

Colonization of Mars solves population growth and the revolts and wars that will ensue

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB In the 21st Century, Earth's population growth will make real-estate here ever more expensive, making it ever harder for people to own their own homes. At the same time, the ongoing bureaucratization of the former terrestrial frontier societies will make it ever harder for strong spirits to find adequate means for expressing their creative drive and initiative on Earth. Regulation to "protect" what is will become ever more burdensome to those who would create what is not. A confined world will limit opportunity for all and seek to enforce behavioral and cultural norms that will be unacceptable to many. When the frictions turn into inevitable revolts and wars, there will be losers. A planet of refuge will be needed, and Mars will be there.

Colonization Advantage Solvency- Mars Key

Mars is the only viable target available for true colonization

Zubrin, 96 Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 40 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

[Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Case For Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra July/August 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html] /WFI-MB The primary analogy I wish to draw is that Mars is to the new age of exploration as North America was to the last. The Earth's Moon, close to the metropolitan planet but impoverished in resources, compares to Greenland. Other destinations, such as the Main Belt asteroids, may be rich in potential future exports to Earth but lack the preconditions for the creation of a fully developed indigenous society; these compare to the West Indies. Only Mars has the full set of resources required to develop a native civilization, and only Mars is a viable target for true colonization. Like America in its relationship to Britain and the West Indies, Mars has a positional advantage that will allow it to participate in a useful way to support extractive activities on behalf of Earth in the asteroid belt and elsewhere. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 41 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Economy Advantage**

1ac- Economy Advantage 1/3

First, Mars settlements will be central to the intergalactic trade of resources

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Martian colonists will be able to use rocket hoppers using locally produced propellants to lift such resources from the Martian surface to Mars' moon Phobos, where an electromagnetic catapult can be enplaced capable of firing the cargo off to Earth for export. Alternatively, on Mars it will also be possible to build a "skyhook" consisting of a cable whose center of mass is located at a distance from which it will orbit the planet in synchrony with Mars' daily rotation. To an observer on the Martian surface such cables will appear to stand motionless, allowing payloads to be delivered to space via cable car. Because of strength of materials limits, such systems cannot be built on Earth, but in Mars' 3/8 gravity they may well be feasible. If so, they would give the Mars colonists the unique ability not merely to transport goods to Earth, but to access the resources present throughout the rest of the solar system. Mars will become the central base and port of call for exploration and commerce heading out to the asteroid belt, the outer solar system, and beyond.

And, Mars is key to economic growth and technological innovation—single best option in the solar system for future resource extraction and development

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB We have examined the prospects for colonizing Mars, addressing the question of its economic viability. We have shown, that of all bodies in the solar system other than Earth, Mars is unique in that it has the resources required to support a population of sufficient size to create a new branch of human civilization. We have seen that despite the fact that Mars may lack any resource directly exportable to Earth, Mars' orbital elements and other physical parameters gives a unique positional advantage that will allow it to act as a keystone supporting extractive activities in the asteroid belt and elsewhere in the solar system. We have examined the potential of relatively near-term types of interplanetary transportation systems, and shown that with very modest advances on a historical scale, systems can be put in place that will allow individuals and families to emigrate to Mars at their own discretion. Their motives for doing so will parallel in many ways the historical motives for Europeans and others to come to America, including higher pay rates in a labor-short economy, escape from tradition and oppression, as well as freedom to exercise their drive to create in an untamed and undefined world. Under conditions of such large scale and open immigration, sale of real-estate will add a significant source of income to the planet's economy. However the greatest source of Martian wealth, and the greatest benefit of its existence to the terrestrial world, will be as a pressure cooker for invention and innovation of every type. In analogy to frontier America but going well beyond it, Mars will be a society of self-selected immigrants, operating in a harsh, labor-short environment in which practical innovation and technological acumen will be at a premium. Licensing on Earth of the inventions created under conditions of necessity on Mars will bring vast amounts of income to support the development of the Red Planet, even as these same inventions continue to raise terrestrial living standards and destabilize tendencies that would otherwise exist on Earth towards technological and social stagnation. What the Mediterranean was to the Greeks, what the New World was to the Western Europeans, Mars will be to the pioneering nations of the next several centuries; the engine of progress of the coming era. As America showed in the 19th Century, such an engine of can pull far more than its own weight. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 42 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

And, Martian real-estate development will cause massive economic growth—can be bought and traded now

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB Martian real-estate can be broken down into two categories; habitable and open. By habitable real-estate I mean that which is under a dome, allowing human settlers to live there in a relatively conventional shirt-sleeve open-air environment. Open real-estate is that which is outside the domes. It is obvious that habitable real-estate is far more valuable than open real-estate. Nevertheless, both of these can be bought and sold, and as transportation costs drop, both forms of Martian real-estate will rise in value. The only kind of land that exists on Mars right now is open. There is an immense amount of it - 143 million square kilometers - but it might seem that that it is all completely worthless because it cannot currently be exploited. Not so. Enormous tracts of land were bought and sold in Kentucky for very large sums of money a hundred years before settlers arrived - for purposes of development trans-Appalacian America might as well have been Mars in the 1600's. What made it salable were two things: 1) That at least a few people believed that it would be exploitable someday, and 2) That a juridical arrangement existed (in the form of British Crown land patents) which allowed trans-Appalacian land to be privately owned. In fact, if a mechanism were put in place that could enforce private property rights on Mars, land on Mars could probably be bought and sold now. Such a mechanism would not need to employ enforcers (e.g. space police) on the surface of Mars; the patent or property registry of a sufficiently powerful nation, such as the United States, would be entirely adequate. For example, if the United States chose to grant a mining patent to any private group that surveyed a piece of Martian real-estate to some specified degree of fidelity, such claims would be tradable today on the basis of their future speculative worth (and could probably be used to privately finance robotic mining survey probes in the near future). Furthermore, such claims would be enforceable internationally and throughout the solar system simply by having the US Customs Office penalize with a punitive tariff any US import made anywhere, directly or indirectly, with material that was extracted in defiance to the claim. This sort of mechanism would not imply US sovereignty over Mars, any more that the current US Patent and Copyright Offices coining of ideas into intellectual property implies US government sovereignty over the universe of ideas. But whether it's US, NATO, UN, or Martian Republic, some government's agreement is needed to turn worthless terrain into real-estate property value. Once that is in place, however, even the undeveloped open real-estate on Mars represents a tremendous source of capital to finance the initial development of Martian settlements. Sold at an average value of $10 per acre, Mars would be worth $358 billion. If Mars should be terraformed, these open land prices could be expected to grow 100-fold, with a rough planetary land value of $36 trillion implied. Assuming, as appears to be the case, that a method of terraforming Mars could be found with a total cost much less than this, then those who own Mars would have every reason to seek to develop their property via planetary engineering.

And, Mars colonization will generate economic growth and standards of living

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB While the initial exploration and base-building activities on Mars can be supported by government largess, a true colony must eventually become economically self-supporting. The Mars colony will be able to do this by exporting both ideas and materials. Just as the labor shortage prevalent in colonial and 19th century America drove the creation of Yankee Ingenuity's flood of inventions, so the conditions of extreme labor shortage combined with a technological culture and the unacceptability of impractical legislative constraints against innovation will drive Martian ingenuity to produce wave after wave of invention in energy production, automation and robotics, biotechnology, and other areas. These inventions, licensed on Earth, will finance Mars even as they revolutionize and advance terrestrial living standards as forcefully as 19th century American invention changed Europe and ultimately the rest of the world as well. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 43 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

And Second, Economic collapse causes extinction

Austin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187) What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerous ly increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang . Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 44 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Economy Advantage- Colonization Helps Econ

Mars Colonization Good – Helps Economy

Redcolony.com, 2000 (NQA, Why colonize mars, http://www.redcolony.com/features.php? name=whycolonizemars) Mars is worth a lot of money. There are 144 trillion square meters of surface area, roughly the land area of the Earth, available for development. I'm not going to tell you how great all that land is for residential, commercial, and industrial use... go play Sim City. An important part of the fusion reaction process is deuterium, a stable isotope of hydrogen. Once we can contain a fusion reaction, the deuterium-tritium reaction has a high yield of energy for the small amount of fuel put in. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is hard to obtain on Earth, but on Mars it is five times more abundant in the form of Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (See Also: Compositions). A milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would produce as much energy as 20 tons of coal. Deuterium is also important in chemistry because it reacts the same way as hydrogen, but can be distinguished from hydrogen by its mass. These reactions occur slower than normal hydrogen reactions. There is an abundance of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, gold, silver, and others. Shipping from Mars to Earth, as mentioned above, is much easier than the other way around. Even more promising is the proximity of the asteroid belt to Mars. Dactyl, the moon orbiting the asteroid Ida shown in this picture, is 1.4 kilometers in diameter, yet it contains more iron that the human race has used in its entire existence. These asteroids could be mined near Mars and shipped from the planet for little cost. What we could see develop is a triangle trade route, much like the one in the 18th century between Britain, the West Indies, and America. The economic potential is colossal.

Colonizing mars in the long term will solve for economy debts

Makuch and davies ’10 [dirk and paul, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars, October – November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.htmlwfi-kc ] Self-preservation considerations in a dangerous universe and the human exploratory spirit compel us to explore space and colonize other planets. Mars is the planet in our solar system, which is reasonably close and provides an abundance of resources and shelter for such a colonization effort. Nevertheless, the first step for the colonization of Mars will be the most difficult. Here, we propose that the most pragmatic approach to achieve this goal is by establishing a small permanent robotic base followed by a series of one-way missions to Mars. The advantages of a one-way human mission are many-fold including a dramatic reduction of costs, the long-term commitment by the space agency, the public, and the crew, and that no rehabilitation program is needed for crew members when remaining on the low-gravity surface of Mars. The challenges are still monumental, though, foremost because political and financial long-term commitments have to be secured Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 45 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Resources

Mars provides access to great mining resources

Redcolony.com, 2000 (NQA, Why colonize mars, http://www.redcolony.com/features.php? name=whycolonizemars) There is an abundance of rare metals on Mars such as platinum, gold, silver, and others. Shipping from Mars to Earth, as mentioned above, is much easier than the other way around. Even more promising is the proximity of the asteroid belt to Mars. Dactyl, the moon orbiting the asteroid Ida shown in this picture, is 1.4 kilometers in diameter, yet it contains more iron that the human race has used in its entire existence. These asteroids could be mined near Mars and shipped from the planet for little cost. What we could see develop is a triangle trade route, much like the one in the 18th century between Britain, the West Indies, and America. The economic potential is colossal.

Mars Provides own energy

Redcolony.com, 2000 (NQA, Why colonize mars, http://www.redcolony.com/features.php? name=whycolonizemars) An important part of the fusion reaction process is deuterium, a stable isotope of hydrogen. Once we can contain a fusion reaction, the deuterium-tritium reaction has a high yield of energy for the small amount of fuel put in. Deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, is hard to obtain on Earth, but on Mars it is five times more abundant in the form of Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (See Also: Compositions). A milliliter of liquid heavy-hydrogen fuel would produce as much energy as 20 tons of coal. Deuterium is also important in chemistry because it reacts the same way as hydrogen, but can be distinguished from hydrogen by its mass. These reactions occur slower than normal hydrogen reactions.

Mars colonization generates growth—mineral and metal exports

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB In addition to inventions though, Mars may also be able to export minerals. Like the Earth, Mars has had a complex geologic history, sufficient to form rich mineral ores. Unlike the Earth, however, Mars has not had people on it for the past 5,000 years scavenging all the readily available rich mineral deposits to be found on its surface. Rich, untapped mineral deposits of gold, silver, uranium, platinum, palladium, and other precious metals may all exist on the Martian surface. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 46 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Emigration

Mars key to high wage emigration that generates economic growth

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB Nevertheless, the order of magnitude of the $320,000 fare cited for early immigrants-roughly the cost of a upper-middle class house in many parts of suburban America, or put another way, roughly the life's savings of a successful middle class family - is interesting. It's not a sum of money that anyone would spend lightly, but it is a sum of money that a large number of people could finance if they really wanted to do so. Why would they want to do so? Simply this, because of the small size of the Martian population and the large transport cost itself, it is certain that the cost of labor on Mars will be much greater than on Earth. Therefore wages will be much higher on Mars than on Earth; while $320,000 might be 6 year's salary to an engineer on Earth, it would likely represent only 1 or 2 years' salary on Mars. This wage differential, precisely analogous to the wage differential between Europe and America during most of the past 4 centuries, will make emigration to Mars both desirable and possible for the individual. From the 17th through 19th centuries the classic pattern was for a family in Europe to pool it's resources to allow one of its members to emigrate to America. That emigrant, in turn, would proceed to earn enough money to bring the rest of the family over. Today, the same method of obtaining passage is used by Third World immigrants whose salaries in their native lands are dwarfed by current air-fares. Because the necessary income will be there to pay for the trip after it has been made, loans can even be taken out to finance the journey. It's been done in the past, it'll be done in the future. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 47 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Triangle Trade

Mars settlement key to intergalactic triangular trade

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB It can be seen that the launch burden for sending the cargo to Ceres is about 50 times less for missions starting from Mars than those departing from Earth, regardless of whether the technology employed is all chemical propulsion or chemical launch vehicles combined with nuclear electric propulsion for interplanetary transfer. If the launch vehicle used has a 1000 tonne liftoff mass, if would require 107 launches to assemble the CH4/O2 freighter mission if launched from Earth, but only 2 launches if the departure is from Mars. Even if propellant and other launch costs were ten times greater on Mars than on Earth, it would still be enormously advantageous to launch from Mars. The result that follows is simply this: anything that needs to be sent to the asteroid belt that can be produced on Mars will be produced on Mars. The outline of future interplanetary commerce thus becomes clear. There will be a "triangle trade," with Earth supplying high technology manufactured goods to Mars, Mars supplying low technology manufactured goods and food staples to the asteroid belt and possibly the Moon as well, and the asteroids and Moon sending metals and possibly helium-3 to Earth. This triangle trade, illustrated in Fig. 1 is directly analogous to the triangle trade of Britain, her North American colonies, and the West Indies during the colonial period. Britain would send manufactured goods to North America, the American colonies would send food staples and needed craft products to the West Indies, and the West Indies would send cash crops such as sugar to Britain. A similar triangle trade involving Britain, Australia, and the Spice Islands also supported British trade in the East Indies during the 19th Century.

Mars settlement is close to 90 percent of mineral rich asteroids and is key to intergalactic trade routes

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Case For Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra July/August 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html] /WFI-MB Inventions produced as a matter of necessity by a practical intellectual culture stressed by frontier conditions can make Mars rich, but invention and direct export to Earth are not the only ways that Martians will be able to make a fortune. The other route is via trade to the asteroid belt, the band of small, mineral-rich bodies lying between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. There are about 5,000 asteroids known today, of which about 98% are in the "Main Belt" lying between Mars and Jupiter, with an average distance from the Sun of about 2.7 astronomical units, or AU. (The Earth is 1.0 AU from the Sun.) Of the remaining two percent known as the near-Earth asteroids, about 90% orbit closer to Mars than to the Earth. Collectively, these asteroids represent an enormous stockpile of mineral wealth in the form of platinum group and other valuable metals.Miners operating among the asteroids will be unable to produce their necessary supplies locally. There will thus be a need to export food and other necessary goods from either Earth or Mars to the Main Belt. Mars has an overwhelming positional advantage as a location from which to conduct such trade. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 48 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Economy Advantage- Mars Key to Triangle Trade

Mars key to intergalactic trade, payload to fuel ratio is superior to any other alternative

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB It can be seen that if chemical systems are used exclusively, then the mass ratio required to deliver dry mass to the asteroid belt from Earth is 14 times greater than from Mars. This implies a still (much) greater ratio of payload to takeoff mass ratio from Mars to Ceres than from Earth because all the extra propellant requires massive tankage and larger caliber engines, all of which requires still more propellant, and therefore more tankage, etc. In fact, looking at Table 1 it can safely be said that useful trade between Earth and Ceres (or any other body in the Main asteroid belt) using chemical propulsion is probably impossible while from Mars it is easy. It can also be seen that there is a five-fold advantage in mass ratio delivering cargoes to the Earth's Moon from Mars over doing it from Earth. If nuclear electric propulsion is introduced the story changes, but not much. Mars still has a 7-fold advantage in mass ratio over Earth as a port of departure for the Main Asteroid Belt, which translates into a payload to takeoff weight ratio nearly two orders of magnitude higher for Mars departure than for Earth. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 49 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Ethics Advantage**

1ac- Ethics Advantage 1/2

The plan follows the philosophical nature of ethics that are focused on inproving lifes, ethics around the nature and environment of mars and the way humanity should act in space as far as moral judgment goes.

Reiman ‘10 [Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsink, On Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, oct – nov 2010, journalofcosmology.com wfi-kc] The possibility of discovering life in places like Mars also raises several important philosophical and ethical questions. Addressing these questions in advance, before anything has actually been discovered, is important. As McArthur and Boran (2004) have noted, humans have a deplorable record in dealing with each other and with their fellow species here on Earth. According to them, it is possible that speculating about our moral obligations towards extraterrestrials serves as a call to improve our record here on Earth (McArthur & Bodan 2004, Cockell 2007). Philosophy of space exploration is similar to the technology of space exploration in that it has the potential to improve the lives of many of those who are not directly involved in the exploration effort. The current declining state of our environment (Ceballos et al., 2010; Cains 2010; Moriarty and Honnery 2010; Reese, 2010; Trainer 2010) proves clearly that our traditional way of evaluating environmental ethical questions is far from sound (Ceballos et al., 2010; McKee 2010; Jones 2009; Tonn 2010). But theorizing will not be enough. As Mark Williamson (2006) has noted, environmental ethics (of which space ethics can be seen as one subcategory) is, and should be, practical ethics. Philosophical research related to space exploration not only has the potential of producing better understanding of how we should act in space ? it could also guide us into treating our own planet more gently. In these times of climate change, widespread species extinction and other threats to the global ecosystem, this knowledge would be of extreme importance. Space and any possible ecosystems on other planets, may represent a fragile frontier (Williamson 2006). Among other things, this could mean that errors in moral judgment are in many ways more serious and less easily repairable than errors made on Earth. In this paper, I will introduce and develop the concept of sustainable exploration. I suggest that virtue ethics is an ethical theory well suited to space exploration, and that sustainability should be a key virtue for space exploration. A manned Mars mission will be the most ambitious exploratory effort humanity has ever undertaken. It should go into history books as an exploration mission where we for once got things right, not just in terms of technical success, but also in terms of ethical excellence.

The question of morals and ethics are questioned within a Mars manned mission – astronauts will be able to make the moral decisions in mars that will protect Mars’s environment

Reiman ‘10 [Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsink, On Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, oct – nov 2010, journalofcosmology.com wfi-kc] Explorative science is characterized by the need to act in epistemically imperfect conditions, that is, in conditions characterized by uncertainty and ignorance about facts normally considered important for moral decision making. In a new environment, it is very difficult to properly anticipate all possible scenarios or weigh the actual risks attached to suggested actions. In a Mars mission, this condition is highlighted since communication to Earth will be slow. Astronauts will need to be able to make big moral decisions independently, without consultation with the mission control center on Earth. In making such decisions, there is great ignorance regarding important factors that might affect our decisionmaking. In risk theory, Aven and Renn (2009) have stated that "Risk refers to uncertainty about and severity of the events and consequences (or outcomes) of an activity with respect to something that humans value." Arnould and Debus (2008) have elegantly summed up the problem: in an ideal world, we would wait until we understood things before we did them. But in the actual world, we usually need to act in partial ignorance in order to gain understanding. Somewhere along the journey from ignorance to understanding, is experience. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 50 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

1ac- Ethics Advantage 2/2

Mars colonization and world creation is key to freedom and dignity

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Why Mars? Why not on Earth, under the oceans or in such remote region as Antarctica? And if it must be in space, why on Mars? Why not on the Moon or in artificial satellites in orbit about the Earth? It is true that settlements on or under the sea or in Antarctica are entirely possible, and their establishment and access would be much easier than that of Martian colonies. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that at this point in history such terrestrial developments cannot meet an essential requirement for a frontier — to wit, they are insufficiently remote to allow for the free development of a new society. In this day and age, with modern terrestrial communication and transportation systems, no matter how remote or hostile the spot on Earth, the cops are too close. If people are to have the dignity that comes with making their own world, they must be free of the old.

Mars colonization allows for the creation of a new world outside of current exclusions

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Life in the initial Mars settlements will be harder than life on Earth for most people, but life in the first North American colonies was much harder than life in Europe as well. People will go to Mars for many of the same reasons they went to colonial America: because they want to make a mark, or to make a new start, or because they are members of groups who are persecuted on Earth, or because they are members of groups who want to create a society according to their own principles. Many kinds of people will go, with many kinds of skills, but all who go will be people who are willing to take a chance to do something important with their lives. Out of such people are great projects made and great causes won. Aided by ever advancing technology, such people can transform a planet and bring a dead world to life.

Mars colonization ensures the preservation of the dignity and value of humankind

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Humanity needs Mars. An open frontier on Mars will allow for the preservation of cultural diversity which must vanish within the single global society that is rapidly being created on Earth. The necessity of life on Mars will create a strong driver for technological progress that will produce a flood of innovations that will upset any tendency towards technological stagnation on the mother planet. The labor shortage that will exist on Mars will function in much the same way as the labor shortage did in 19th- century America; driving not only technological but social innovation, increasing pay and public education, and in every way setting a new standard for a higher form of humanist civilization. Martian settlers, building new cities, defining new laws and customs, and ultimately transforming their planet will know sensuously, and prove to all outside observers, that human beings are the makers of their world, and not merely its inhabitants. By doing so they will reaffirm in the most powerful way possible the humanist notion of the dignity and value of mankind. Mars beckons. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 51 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Ethics Advantage Extensions

We should still remain ethical but we must still pursue our own interest for the concept of human needs

Reiman ‘10 [Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsink, On Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, oct – nov 2010, journalofcosmology.com wfi-kc] Sustainable exploration of space does not mean that we should be so sensitive to interests of others that we cease to pursue our own interests . There are good reasons to place a high priority on the needs of Earth and most current human space-related interests . What is important is the manner in which we choose to pursue those interests (Reiman 2009). Virtue ethics can be applied to answer questions such as:" How far is it right to go when pursuing intellectual interests ?" and "When should we start balancing scientific interests with other important concerns?" In light of the concept of benevolence, we are able understand that (scientific) curiosity is good, but it must be balanced by concern for the well-being of others and the adviseablity of acting responsibly. In essence, a benevolent attitude is one that hits the right balance between our own interests and the interests of others, be they future generations or other species.

Ethical implications will be indicated in the manned missions extraterrestrials will be unharmed and we will practice our abstract values of ethics

Reiman ‘10 [Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsink, On Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, oct – nov 2010, journalofcosmology.com wfi-kc] As Williamson noted, space explorers seldom openly advocate unsustainable goals. This is a very important observation. It highlights the fact that it is not sufficient for the moral community (such as the space explorers) to agree in theory that protection of space environments is good and that we should avoid harming extraterrestrial life forms. If the goal is to explore space in a truly sustainable manner, we need a deep understanding of what abstract ethical concepts such as "harm" and "protection" mean, as well as a working vision of how to turn the abstract values in practice. We need to know how to mediate the interests expressed by the concept of sustainability with our scientific, economical and political interests. If the exploration effort is not specifically analyzed from an ethical perspective, unsustainable motives and background assumptions easily get on board of our spacecraft. Let us consider a dramatic historical example, the Viking biological experiment. This experiment was carried out by Viking landers, which were part of Viking Mars exploration program in the 1970s (Klein et al 1976; Levin 2010). The concerns voiced here may also apply to any sample-gathering missions, such as the planned Mars Sample Return missions. In the Viking biological experiment, one of the experiments performed was a pyrolytic release experiment. In the experiment, a soil sample was baked in 650 C, and the products were collected in a device which counted radioactivity. If any of 14C had been converted to biomass, it would be vaporized during heating and the radioactivity counter would detect it as evidence of life. Should a positive response been obtained, a duplicate sample of the same soil would be heated to "sterilize" it. It would then have been tested as a control, and had it still shown activity similar to the first response, that was evidence that the activity was chemical in nature. Needless to say, any Martian life contained in the sample would have been destroyed in the process. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 52 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Ethics Advantage Extensions Cont.

We have to remember our mission to mars, we will be exploring a different kind of humanity under ethics and morality

Reiman ‘10 [Department of Political and Economic Studies in the University of Helsink, On Sustainable Exploration of Space and Extraterrestrial Life, oct – nov 2010, journalofcosmology.com wfi-kc] There are critical philosophical questions underlying the goal of discovering extraterrestrial life. "What kind of explorers do we wish to be?" and "What kind of humanity do we want to take to space?" are examples of such questions. As we explore space, we will also explore ourselves as a species. What we learn from this exploration can affect on how we choose to pursue good life on Earth. Many of the background assumptions we operate on here will no longer work as intended in space environments. One such example is the possible scarcity of microbial life in environments like Mars. When developing research methods, we must become aware of such background assumptions and adapt our moral decision making system to these conditions. Failure to do so might lead to making grave errors in judgment.

When we move mars and we worry about which people will transfer to mars, we don’t exclude then poor and powerless, more of taking down the mindset that the powerful and rich should go first

Appell ‘80 [G.N, an expert writer on human rights, Talking Ethics: The Uses of Moral Rhetoric and the Function of Ethical Principles,1980, http://www.jstor.org/stable/800253?seq=2 wfi-kc] Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 53 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Leadership Advantage**

1ac- Leadership Advantage 1/3

The aff is key to leadership for a few reasons- First, Mars Colonization independently is key to US Heg

NPR 10 [NPR, “The Final Frontier: A Mars Mission With No Return”, NPR, 12-5-2010, http://www.npr.org/2010/12/05/131815965/one-way-mission-to-mars WFI-MZ] Legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin, who was the second person to step on the moon on the 1969 Apollo 11 mission, agrees with Davies, to a certain degree. Aldrin is not one of the many volunteers lining up for the one-way mission to Mars, but he feels that the trip is inevitable — and it's important for the U.S. to pave the way. "If we slow down now," Aldrin tells Cornish, "we will lose the opportunity for leadership in an international lunar development corporation." Earlier this year, President Obama addressed a roomful of astronauts and scientists at the John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. He spoke to them about the future of space exploration in the 21st century and affirmed his belief that NASA will be able to send astronauts to Mars and back by the mid-2030s. But if scientists like Davies have their way, we may actually be living on the red planet by then. "If Mars is worth going to," Davies says, "it's worth staying on."

Second, A mission to mars is central to technological leadership and economic growth

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Reason # 2: For the Challenge. Nations, like people, thrive on challenge and decay without it. The space program itself needs challenge. Consider: Between 1961 and 1973, under the impetus of the Moon race, NASA produced a rate of technological innovation several orders of magnitude greater than that it has shown since, for an average budget in real dollars virtually the same as that today ($19 billion in 2010 dollars). Why? Because it had a goal that made its reach exceed its grasp. It is not necessary to develop anything new if you are not doing anything new. Far from being a waste of money, forcing NASA to take on the challenge of Mars is the key to giving the nation a real technological return for its space dollar. A humans-to-Mars program would also be an challenge to adventure to every child in the country: "Learn your science and you can become part of pioneering a new world." There will be over 100 million kids in our nation's schools over the next ten years. If a Mars program were to inspire just an extra 1% of them to scientific educations, the net result would be 1 million more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical researchers and doctors, making innovations that create new industries, finding new medical cures, strengthening national defense, and increasing national income to an extent that dwarfs the expenditures of the Mars program. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 54 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Next are the impacts, first US hegemony prevents great power wars and is vital to the spread of democracy and the economy

Thayer 6 [Professor of Defense and Strategic Studies @ Missouri State University [Thayer, Bradley A., "In Defense of Primacy.," National Interest; Nov/Dec2006 Issue 86, p32-37] U.S. primacy--and the bandwagoning effect-- has also given us extensive influence in international politics, allowing the U nited St ates to shape the behavior of states and international institutions. Such influence comes in many forms, one of which is America's ability to create coalitions of like-minded states to free Kosovo, stabilize Afghanistan, invade Iraq or to stop proliferation through the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI). Doing so allows the United States to operate with allies outside of the UN, where it can be stymied by opponents. American-led wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq stand in contrast to the UN's inability to save the people of Darfur or even to conduct any military campaign to realize the goals of its charter. The quiet effectiveness of the PSI in dismantling Libya's WMD programs and unraveling the A. Q. Khan proliferation network are in sharp relief to the typically toothless attempts by the UN to halt proliferation. You can count with one hand countries opposed to the United States. They are the "Gang of Five": China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Venezuela. Of course, countries like India, for example, do not agree with all policy choices made by the United States, such as toward Iran, but New Delhi is friendly to Washington. Only the "Gang of Five" may be expected to consistently resist the agenda and actions of the United States. China is clearly the most important of these states because it is a rising great power. But even Beijing is intimidated by the United States and refrains from openly challenging U.S. power. China proclaims that it will, if necessary, resort to other mechanisms of challenging the United States, including asymmetric strategies such as targeting communication and intelligence satellites upon which the United States depends. But China may not be confident those strategies would work, and so it is likely to refrain from testing the United States directly for the foreseeable future because China's power benefits, as we shall see, from the international order U.S. primacy creates. The other states are far weaker than China. For three of the "Gang of Five" cases--Venezuela, Iran, Cuba--it is an anti-U.S. regime that is the source of the problem; the country itself is not intrinsically anti-American. Indeed, a change of regime in Caracas, Tehran or Havana could very well reorient relations. THROUGHOUT HISTORY , peace and stability have been great benefits of an era where there was a dominant power --Rome, Britain or the United States today. Scholars and statesmen have long recognized the irenic effect of power on the anarchic world of international politics. Everything we think of when we consider the current international order-- free trade , a robust monetary regime , increasing respect for human rights , growing democratization -- is directly linked to U.S. power . Retrenchment proponents seem to think that the current system can be maintained without the current amount of U.S. power behind it. In that they are dead wrong and need to be reminded of one of history's most significant lessons: Appalling things happen when international orders collapse. The Dark Ages followed Rome's collapse . Hitler succeeded the order established at Versailles. Without U.S. power , the liberal order created by the U nited S tates will end just as assuredly. As country and western great Ral Donner sang: "You don't know what you've got (until you lose it)." Consequently, it is important to note what those good things are. In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within the international system causes many positive outcomes for Washington and the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, U.S. leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American primacy helps keep a number of complicated relationships aligned--between Greece and Turkey , Israel and Egypt , South Korea and Japan , India and Pakistan , Indonesia and Australia. This is not to say it fulfills Woodrow Wilson's vision of ending all war. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does reduce war's likelihood, particularly war's worst form: great power wars . Second, American power gives the United States the ability to spread democracy and other elements of its ideology of liberalism: Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as well as the United States because, as John Owen noted on these pages in the Spring 2006 issue, liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American worldview.( n3) So, spreading democracy helps maintain U.S. primacy. In addition, once states are governed democratically, the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not because democracies do not have clashing interests. Indeed they do. Rather, it is because they are more Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 55 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

open, more transparent and more likely to want to resolve things amicably in concurrence with U.S. leadership. And so, in general, democratic states are good for their citizens as well as for advancing the interests of the United States. Critics have faulted the Bush Administration for attempting to spread democracy in the Middle East, labeling such aft effort a modern form of tilting at windmills. It is the obligation of Bush's critics to explain why :democracy is good enough for Western states but not for the rest, and, one gathers from the argument, should not even be attempted. Of course, whether democracy in the Middle East will have a peaceful or stabilizing influence on America's interests in the short run is open to question. Perhaps democratic Arab states would be more opposed to Israel, but nonetheless, their people would be better off. The United States has brought democracy to Afghanistan, where 8.5 million Afghans, 40 percent of them women, voted in a critical October 2004 election, even though remnant Taliban forces threatened them. The first free elections were held in Iraq in January 2005. It was the military power of the United States that put Iraq on the path to democracy. Washington fostered democratic governments in Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Caucasus. Now even the Middle East is increasingly democratic. They may not yet look like Western-style democracies, but democratic progress has been made in Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, the Palestinian Authority and Egypt. By all accounts, the march of democracy has been impressive. Third, along with the growth in the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of the global economy. With its allies , the U nited S tates has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by free trade and commerce, respect for international property rights, and mobility of capital and labor markets. The economic stability and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly the poorest states in the Third World. The United States created this network not out of altruism but for the benefit and the economic well-being of America. This economic order forces American industries to be competitive, maximizes efficiencies and growth, and benefits defense as well because the size of the economy makes the defense burden manageable. Economic spin-offs foster the development of military technology, helping to ensure military prowess.

And Second, Economic collapse causes extinction

Austin 9 (Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187) What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability . The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerous ly increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang . Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 56 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Leadership Adv Extensions- STEM Leadership

Mission to mars is key to technological and STEM leadership

Levine, 4/12/2011 (Joel, Senior research scientist at NASA’s Langley Research Center, “The Exploration of Mars by humans: Why Mars? Why Humans?” Online, MB) The reasons for a human mission to Mars are several and include, (1) The human urge to explore new and distant frontiers; (2) To inspire both the American public and the next generation of scientist, technologist, engineer and technologist (STEM); (3) Enhanced national prestige; (4) Technological leadership; (5) Enhanced national security; (6) The development of new technologies for non-space spin-off applications; (7) Enhanced economic vitality; and (8) New scientific discoveries not obtainable from robotic missions to Mars. Some have suggested other reasons for colonizing the Red Planet are more catastrophic in nature, including Mars as a safe haven for the survival of the human species in the event of an impact on Earth with a large asteroid or comet (remember the demise of the dinosaurs 65-million years ago as a result of an asteroid or comet impact). Some have even suggested that the colonization of Mars may be a possible solution to the exponential population explosion on our planet. The human mission to Mars is a very exciting and challenging journey. The trip will take about nine months each way with a stay time on the surface of Mars of several hundred days. The long length of the mission will provide an excellent opportunity to engage the public and especially students in elementary and middle school in the mission. Following the launch of Sputnik 1 on October 4, 1957, the U.S. and the rest of the world witnessed a significant increase in the numbers of students studying science, technology, engineering and mathematics and entering the STEM professions (I was one of those students). In the U.S., the influx of students in the STEM professions resulted in new STEM-related products and industries, and in enhanced national security and enhanced economic vitality. Unfortunately, the situation has changed significantly in recent times with fewer students studying STEM areas and entering the STEM workforce. It is interesting to note that the new chief education officer at NASA, the associate administrator of education, is former Astronaut Leland Melvin, clearly an excellent role model for students.

Mars Colonization Good – Scientific Development

Redcolony.com, 2000 (NQA, Why colonize mars, http://www.redcolony.com/features.php? name=whycolonizemars) With its similarity to Earth, there is a strong possibility that bacterial life (or something more?) exists on the planet. Some people believe that Viking detected it way back in 1976. Others believe that we found it in a Martian meteorite. Rovers are on their way to Mars to settle the debate, but we may only be sure if humans look for themselves. As any engineer will tell you, the ease with which a human being can cover a stretch of ground and examine specimens along the way, gathering and processing data, cannot be emulated with a machine. If we ever find life, we can begin to answer some of the biggest questions we've ever asked: "Are we alone in the universe? What else is out there? What is the basic unit of life? What does life need to survive?" From a geological standpoint alone, Mars is exciting because it offers scientists a view of how planets develop. Mars is billions of years older than the Earth, and its features are much more exaggerated. The largest canyons, volcanoes, and craters in the solar system are available for our study. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 57 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Leadership Adv Extensions- Tech Innovation

Space exploration and the research it engenders is key to technological innovation and leadership

Wintergerst, 2007 (Stephen, “Mars: An investment in the Earth.” Online, //wyo MB). The early days of the space exploration was a different story altogether. In those early days, NASA did not have all of the equipment it needed for effective space operation. NASA didn�t even know what all of that equipment was. In those days, NASA had to develop all kinds of new technology, new insulation, new lubricants, new flexible materials, new clothing, and new electronic components. From these early days of NASA, we have all kinds of silicon products, from silicon lubricant to silicon implants. We have new clothing materials. We have new mylar insulation that allows us to have more efficient air conditioning, and more effective firefighting outfits. We have hardened electronic components which allow reliable operation of communication, weather, mapping, and cable satellites. The space program also popularized a number of unpopular technologies that make our life easier. Velcro, zippers, microwave ovens, and the miniaturized communication technologies needed for cell phones came from this. Currently, NASA is staggering under its own weight. No serious challenges have arisen, so no new technology is being developed. What is needed is a new challenge to promote new technology. Space itself is pretty much the same everywhere, so a new field of research, such as a planet, or moon is our key to new technologies.

Mars colonization leads to ideas and tech innovation

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Case For Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra July/August 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html] /WFI-MB Ideas may be another possible export for Martian colonists. Just as the labor shortage prevalent in colonial and nineteenth century America drove the creation of "Yankee ingenuity's" flood of inventions, so the conditions of extreme labor shortage combined with a technological culture that shuns impractical legislative constraints against innovation will tend to drive Martian ingenuity to produce wave after wave of invention in energy production, automation and robotics, biotechnology, and other areas. These inventions, licensed on Earth, could finance Mars even as they revolutionize and advance terrestrial living standards as forcefully as nineteenth century American invention changed Europe and ultimately the rest of the world as well. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 58 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A mission to mars is central to technological leadership and economic growth

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Reason # 2: For the Challenge. Nations, like people, thrive on challenge and decay without it. The space program itself needs challenge. Consider: Between 1961 and 1973, under the impetus of the Moon race, NASA produced a rate of technological innovation several orders of magnitude greater than that it has shown since, for an average budget in real dollars virtually the same as that today ($19 billion in 2010 dollars). Why? Because it had a goal that made its reach exceed its grasp. It is not necessary to develop anything new if you are not doing anything new. Far from being a waste of money, forcing NASA to take on the challenge of Mars is the key to giving the nation a real technological return for its space dollar. A humans-to-Mars program would also be an challenge to adventure to every child in the country: "Learn your science and you can become part of pioneering a new world." There will be over 100 million kids in our nation's schools over the next ten years. If a Mars program were to inspire just an extra 1% of them to scientific educations, the net result would be 1 million more scientists, engineers, inventors, medical researchers and doctors, making innovations that create new industries, finding new medical cures, strengthening national defense, and increasing national income to an extent that dwarfs the expenditures of the Mars program. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 59 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Mars colonization will generate tech innovation that will advance civilization

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB As mentioned before, the labor shortage that will prevail on Mars will drive Martian civilization towards both technological and social advances. If you're paying five times the terrestrial wage rate you're not going to want to waste any of your worker's time with stoop labor or filling out forms, and you will not seek to exclude someone who can perform some desperately needed profession from doing so just because he or she has not taken the trouble to run some institutional obstacle course to obtain appropriate certifications. In short, Martian civilization will be practical because it will have to be, just as 19th Century American civilization was, and this forced pragmatism will give it an enormous advantage in competing with the less stressed, and therefore more tradition bound society remaining behind on Earth. Necessity is the mother of invention; Mars will provide the cradle. A frontier society based on technological excellence and pragmatism, and populated by people self-selected for personal drive, will perforce be a hot-bed of invention, and these inventions will not only serve the needs of the Martians but of the terrestrial population as well. Therefore they will bring income to Mars (via terrestrial licensing) at the same time they disrupt the labor-rich terrestrial society's inherent tendency towards stagnation. This process of rejuvenation, and not direct economic benefits via triangle-trade for main-belt asteroid mineral resources, will ultimately be the greatest benefit that the colonization of Mars will offer Earth, and it will be those terrestrial societies who have the closest social, cultural, linguistic, and economic links with the Martians who will benefit the most.

Mars colonization will spur technological innovation and advancement that will dramatically advance society

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Without the opening of a new frontier on Mars, continued Western civilization faces the risk of technological stagnation. To some this may appear to be an outrageous statement, as the present age is frequently cited as one of technological wonders. In fact, however, the rate of progress within our society has been decreasing and at an alarming rate. To see this, it is only necessary to step back and compare the changes that have occurred in the past 30 years with those that occurred in the preceding 30 years and the 30 years before that. Between 1903 and 1933 the world was revolutionized: Cities were electrified; telephones and broadcast radio became common; talking motion pictures appeared; automobiles became practical; and aviation progressed from the Wright Flyer to the DC-3 and Hawker Hurricane. Between 1933 and 1963 the world changed again, with the introduction of color television, communication satellites and interplanetary spacecraft, computers, antibiotics, scuba gear, nuclear power, Atlas, Titan, and Saturn rockets, Boeing 727's and SR-71's. Compared to these changes, the technological innovations from 1963 to the present are insignificant. Immense changes should have occurred during this period, but did not. Had we been following the previous 60 years' technological trajectory, we today would have videotelephones, solar powered cars, maglev trains, fusion reactors, hypersonic intercontinental travel, regular passenger transportation to orbit, undersea cities, open-sea mariculture and human settlements on the Moon and Mars. Instead, today we see important technological developments, such as nuclear power and biotechnology, being blocked or enmeshed in political controversy — we are slowing down. Now, consider a nascent Martian civilization: Its future will depend critically upon the progress of science and technology. Just as the inventions produced by the "Yankee Ingenuity" of frontier America were a powerful driving force on worldwide human progress in the 19th century, so the "Martian Ingenuity" born in a culture that puts the utmost premium on intelligence, practical education and the determination required to make real contributions will make much more than its fair share of the scientific and technological breakthroughs that will dramatically advance the human condition in the 21st. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 60 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Leadership Adv Extensions- Hegemony

Colonization and Exploration key to US Heg

Loureiro 10 [Luis, former Army Major, “The Free World is Losing NASA’s Leadership”, Space Daily, 3-2-10, http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Free_World_Is_Losing_NASA_Space_Leadership_999.html WFI-MZ] In the United States, to the astonishment of the world, NASA's budget has been "redirected" to simple LEO applications and some inexpensive research programs. Can this be true? This is the agency that has contributed most to America's prestige with its innovative and extraordinary achievements in space, from the time of early explorations of the universe to today's highly advanced technological achievements. Is prestige important? Not only is prestige important, it is part of the American tradition, part of American life and by extension, America's preeminence lights the free world and provides hope and support that other nations, too, can shine and succeed. The budget is important for any administration. Traditionally, most countries around the world wait for a signal from America - the scientific and technological leader - and rely upon America to protect their freedoms. Until now, countries pursuing space programs have not competed against America or against each other, but they will now have to continue alone or somehow partner with other countries. Without NASA's leadership, who will guide the world in peaceful space applications? Without NASA there is a void of experienced leaders well grounded in science. Indeed, we are approaching a new era in which space will be exploited by private, political, economic and military interests - not only in LEO, but also in deep space exploration. Will countries continue along the moral high ground of benefiting all mankind with the fruits of exploration and innovation or will space become a battleground for national greed and gain? America should not decide NASA's future merely on the basis of budgetary expedience. Space exploration is a matter that affects the rights and freedoms of people around the world. The rights and the dreams of many countries are closely tied to NASA, ESA and other recognized space agencies. The rich history of NASA brought the world Voyager 1, Apollo, robots on Mars, Kepler, Cassini- Huygens, Curiosity and so many more. Citizens of foreign countries around the globe hope and pray for a changed view of NASA among America's political leaders. NASA's successes and legacy are not only America's heritage, but that of all free countries. We long to discover new scientific horizons in space that will improve our lives and allow our countries to succeed and to live in a peaceful future. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 61 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 62 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Leadership Adv Extensions- Hegemony

NASA and space exploration key to US Heg

AIA 09 [Aerospace Industries Association, “NASA Funding Critical to U.S. Leadership in Space”, 6-19-09, http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewpr.rss.html?pid=28488 WFI-MZ] Arlington, Va. - NASA stands front and center as the most visible representation of the U.S. space program and is critical to our country's future leadership and competitiveness, AIA Vice President of Space Systems J.P. Stevens said Thursday. " Over the last 50 years, space technologies have increasingly become an important part of our nation's economic, scientific and national security fabric," Stevens said in testimony to the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. "However, other nations are making rapid advancements, and our leadership in space is no longer guaranteed." AIA strongly supports the current proposed NASA budget of $18.7 billion, however, Stevens noted that zero growth is budgeted through 2013. "This is a real concern. The Chinese absolutely want to send humans to the moon and are putting in the resources to make it happen," said Stevens in response to a question. "If we continue to delay our programs, it's quite possible that the Chinese will return to the moon first." Stevens made a number of recommendations regarding NASA reauthorization, including treating the U.S. Space Exploration Policy and Constellation Program as a national priority to minimize the impending gap in U.S. human spaceflight. He also urged funding for NASA in a number of other critical areas be strengthened including aeronautics for timely development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System and education initiatives to attract youth to careers with NASA and the aerospace industry. Finally, the Commercial Space Launch Amendment, which expires this year, needs to be renewed to keep the U.S. space launch industry healthy. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 63 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Nuke Power Advantage Add-On 1/2

Mars settlement produces deuterium, which is key to nuclear power

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Case For Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra July/August 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html] /WFI-MB But there is one commercial resource that is known to exist ubiquitously on Mars in large amount — deuterium. Deuterium, the heavy isotope of hydrogen, occurs as 166 out of every million hydrogen atoms on Earth, but comprises 833 out of every million hydrogen atoms on Mars. Deuterium is the key fuel not only for both first and second generation fusion reactors, but it is also an essential material needed by the nuclear power industry today. Even with cheap power, deuterium is very expensive; its current market value on Earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly fifty times as valuable as silver or 70% as valuable as gold. This is in today's pre-fusion economy. Once fusion reactors go into widespread use deuterium prices will increase. All the in-situ chemical processes required to produce the fuel, oxygen, and plastics necessary to run a Mars settlement require water electrolysis as an intermediate step. As a by product of these operations, millions, perhaps billions, of dollars worth of deuterium will be produced.

Nuclear energy doesn’t emit air pollutants or greenhouse gases, eliminating 700 million metric tons of CO2 a year. Laurel M. Sheppard, 2008, is President of Lash Publications International and has a B.S. in ceramic engineering and has written numerous articles on ceramic technology and manufacturing, as well as a market report on ceramic matrix composites for Business Communications Co., Is nuclear power the answer to US energy needs?, http://composite.about.com/od/aboutcompositesplastics/l/aa030205.htm One of the major benefits of nuclear energy is that it emits no air pollutants or greenhouse gases. Total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions increased from the 1990 baseline of 6113 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 7147 million metric tons in 2005. A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study calculated that, if 1000-1500 nuclear power plants with a capacity of 1000 MW each were to replace coalfired power plants in the future, 1.8 billion metric tons/year of carbon emissions could be eliminated. Nuclear plants avoid the same amount of carbon dioxide emissions that are annually emitted from almost all passenger cars in the United States, which is almost 700 million metric tons/year of carbon dioxide. This figure is equivalent to the amount of reductions needed to achieve the 1990 levels agreed to in the 1992 United Nations Climate Change Treaty.

Warming devastates every ecosystem on the planet J.C. Ryan, Worldwatch Institute, WORLDWATCH PAPER 108, September/October 1992, p. 10-11 Now evolution is again being thrown off its usual course – but not by a gradual change in global temperature or an explosive collision between the Earth and a giant asteroid, both of which are primary suspects in the demise of the dinosaurs. This time, the collision is between the insatiable demands of one species and the finite capacity of its global habitat. The result is rates of extinction several thousand times normal levels. Biological diversity – the variety not just of species, but of genes and ecosystem – is diminishing at precipitous rates throughout the world. Species are vanishing most rapidly – and most notably – from dwindling tropical forests. But mass extinction is everywhere; amphibians are declining worldwide; three-quarters of the world’s species of birds are declining in population or threatened with extinction; and genetic varieties of crops, fish, and livestock are all rapidly disappearing, near and far from the equator. Yet the worst may still lie ahead. If human-generated global warming comes to pass as rapidly as most climatologists predict, another wave of extinction – even more massive than the one already in progress – is in store. While the problems of declining biodiversity and global warming have each attracted extensive attention, the relationship between them has not. Unfortunately, this unholy alliance will probably make the world’s current biological collapse pale in comparison. With a rapidly changing climate, it is not an overstatement to say that practically every habitat on the planet will be put at risk. Most species will face the choice of either adapting or relocating; many will fail to make the transition. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 64 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Nuke Power Advantage Add-On 2/2

Species loss risks extinction

Paul Warner, American University, Dept of International Politics and Foreign Policy, August, Politics and Life Sciences, 1994, p 177 Massive extinction of species is dangerous, then, because one cannot predict which species are expendable to the system as a whole. As Philip Hoose remarks, "Plants and animals cannot tell us what they mean to each other." One can never be sure which species holds up fundamental biological relationships in the planetary ecosystem. And, because removing species is an irreversible act, it may be too late to save the system after the extinction of key plants or animals. According to the U.S. National Research Council, "The ramifications of an ecological change of this magnitude [vast extinction of species] are so far reaching that no one on earth will escape them." Trifling with the "lives" of species is like playing Russian roulette, with our collective future as the stakes. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 65 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Nuke Power Advantage Add-On Extensions

Mars colonization is key to deuterium production, which will get fusion on-line

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] A prime example of the Martian frontier driving new technology will undoubtedly be found in the arena of energy production. As on Earth, an ample supply of energy will be crucial to the success of Mars settlements. The Red Planet does have one major energy resource that we currently know about: deuterium, which can be used as the fuel in nearly waste-free thermonuclear fusion reactors. Earth has large amounts of deuterium too, but with all of the existing investments in other, more polluting forms of energy production, the research that would make possible practical fusion power reactors has been allowed to stagnate. The Martian colonists are certain to be much more determined to get fusion on-line, and in doing so will massively benefit the mother planet as well.

Mars colonization key to fusion reactor production

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB Even at this early date in its exploration, however, Mars is already known to possess a vital resource that could someday represent a commercial export. Deuterium, the heavy isotope of hydrogen currently valued at $10,000 per kilogram, is five times more common on Mars than it is on Earth. Deuterium has its applications today, but it is also the basic fuel for fusion reactors, and in the future when such systems come into play as a major foundation of Earth's energy economy, the market for deuterium will expand greatly. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 66 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Democracy Advantage Add-On

Mars colonization renews democracy and spurs civic participation

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] The frontier drove the development of democracy in America by creating a self-reliant population which insisted on the right to self-government. It is doubtful that democracy can persist without such people. True, the trappings of democracy exist in abundance in America today, but meaningful public participation in the process has all but disappeared. Consider that no representative of a new political party has been elected president of the United States since 1860. Likewise, neighborhood political clubs and ward structures that once allowed citizen participation in party deliberations have vanished. And with a re-election rate of 95 percent, the U.S. Congress is hardly susceptible to the people's will. Regardless of the will of Congress, the real laws, covering ever broader areas of economic and social life, are increasingly being made by a plethora of regulatory agencies whose officials do not even pretend to have been elected by anyone. Democracy in America and elsewhere in western civilization needs a shot in the arm. That boost can only come from the example of a frontier people whose civilization incorporates the ethos that breathed the spirit into democracy in America in the first place. As Americans showed Europe in the last century, so in the next the Martians can show us the path away from oligarchy.

Democratic spread solves all major impacts and stops extinction via environmental destruction

Diamond 95 (Larry, Senior Fellow – Hoover Institution, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s, December, http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm) OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness. LESSONS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 67 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Misc Cards**

Aff/Cp Solvency? Private Ownership Key

Private ownership of land on Mars is critical to successful colonization—need a profit motive

Collins, 2008 [David, Lecturer City Law School City Univeristy London, “Efficient Allocation of Real Property Rights on the Planet Mars.” Boston Univ. Journal of Science and Technology Law. 14 B.U. J. Sci. and Tech. L. 201, Summer, 2008, LexisNexis Academic] /WFI-MB In August 2007 NASA successfully launched the $ 90.5 million Phoenix Spacecraft which is scheduled to land on the surface of the planet Mars in the spring of 2008. The planned Mars Science Laboratory, another robotic spacecraft that should land on Mars in 2010, will cost an estimated $ 347 million in 2007, with further operating expenses each year. n1 Should these new missions be completed as envisioned, they will be the sixth and seventh devices to land on the surface of Mars sent by the United States. n2 Yet, despite these significant achievements in space exploration and their enormous cost, the existing regime of space law tells us that Mars belongs to the "common [*202] heritage of mankind." n3 Common ownership of Mars (and the other planets as well as the Moon) and the resulting sharing of benefits derived from its exploration and development disregard the unequal cost burdens and associated risks that discourage investment and productive use. As a number of authors have argued, the opportunity for private profit, in one form or another, is an essential incentive for the advancement of space exploration, n4 especially as the expected gains are of high uncertainty. This article will further develop this view by challenging the idea of common property with respect to real property on the planet Mars and by evaluating specific ways in which such property rights can be allocated on the basis of efficiency. Accordingly, the current hypothetical of human exploration and colonization of Mars, although not improbable, will be considered from the perspective of a cost-benefit analysis. The article concludes that a present and definite legal regime that recognizes geographically limited and privately controlled claims to land on Mars will ensure timely and productive development of our neighboring world.

Privitization is key to colonizing mars

Henry Reske, 11 Mars Colonization Attracts Popular Support, http://www.newsmax.com/US/MarsColony/2011/05/29/id/398149, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF NASA is not exactly keen on the idea of sending folks to Mars and leaving them or, for that matter, traveling to Mars in the near future. With that in mind, the scientists are looking at the growing private space industry to provide the ride, the Post reported. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 68 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Aff/CP Solvency- One Way Mission

One way trips are better in the long run

Tyson 10 [Peter Tyson editor-in-chief NOVA online, “A one-way trip to Mars, 11-04-2010, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html WFI-JG] Permanent colony or not, what advantages does one-way have over round-trip, according to supporters? Above all, it's not nearly as pricey as two-way. "I would say three or four times as expensive to provide return capability," Aldrin says. Chris Kraft, the legendary NASA flight director, has estimated 10 times more costly, Aldrin told me. Much of that expense would lie in launching to Mars a return spacecraft and all the propellant needed for the months-long flight back to Earth. Even if the fuel could be manufactured on Mars—a key component of Zubrin's Mars Direct scheme—the cost would be much greater than if the crew just stayed put, backers contend. "You could say the cost-benefit of a Mars exploration program would be measured by, say, person-days on Mars divided by ton launched into Earth orbit," Zubrin says. "Well, if they stay on Mars, it's going to get a lot more person-days. Instead of staying for a year and a half, they stay for the rest of their lives."

One way mission is safer

Tyson 10 [Peter Tyson editor-in-chief NOVA online, “A one-way trip to Mars, 11-04-2010, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html WFI-JG] One-way would actually be safer for the astronauts than round-trip, Zubrin maintains. "All of the risk associated with the return flight—taking off from Mars, interplanetary flight, then entering [our atmosphere] and landing on Earth—are no longer in the mission," he says. The interplanetary-flight part includes prolonged exposure to zero gravity, cosmic radiation, and perhaps solar flares. Doubling these impacts, proponents stress, could leave returning astronauts more susceptible to contracting cancer or other illnesses down the road than if they'd remained in secure habitats on Mars.

One way mission is doable now

Tyson 10 [Peter Tyson editor-in-chief NOVA online, “A one-way trip to Mars, 11-04-2010, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html WFI-JG] Another advantage is we could achieve a one-way mission with current know-how, enthusiasts assert. We'd have to develop a sufficiently large launcher, but we wouldn't have to clear any great technological hurdles, Davies says. The same can't be said about round-trip, some argue, including launching off Mars. As McLane wrote in a 2006 paper, "Return to Earth from the Martian surface is a daunting technical problem for which current technology offers no obvious solution." Zubrin thinks that, from a technical standpoint, we are actually much closer today to being able to send humans to Mars than we were to sending men to the moon in 1961, and we were there only eight years later. When I asked him if we should, to paraphrase Kennedy, go to Mars in this decade, he said, "I think that's exactly what we should do." Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 69 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**2ac A2**

A2 Diseases

Mars is sterile—if there were diseases we could have them already because of particles that arrive on the earth from Mars

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 4.3. Back Contamination: Recently some people have raised the issue of possible back-contamination as a reason to shun human (or robotic sample return) missions to Mars. Such fears have no basis in science. The surface of Mars is too cold for liquid water, is exposed to near vacuum, ultra violet, and cosmic radiation, and contains an antiseptic mixture of peroxides that have eliminated any trace of organic material. It is thus as sterile an environment as one could ask for. Furthermore, pathogens are specifically adapted to their hosts. Thus, while there may be life on Mars deep underground, it is quite unlikely that these could be pathogenic to terrestrial plants or animals, as there are no similar macrofauna or macroflora to support a pathogenic life cycle in Martian subsurface groundwater. In any case, the Earth currently receives about 500 kg of Martian meteoritic ejecta per year. The trauma that this material has gone through during its ejection from Mars, interplanetary cruise, and re-entry at Earth is insufficient to have sterilized it, as has been demonstrated experimentally and in space studies on the viability of microorganisms following ejection and reentry (Burchell et al. 2004; Burchella et al. 2001; Horneck et al. 1994, 1995, 2001, Horneck et al. 1993; Mastrapaa et al. 2001; Nicholson et al. 2000). So if there is the Red Death on Mars, we’ve already got it. Those concerned with public health would do much better to address their attentions to Africa.

No impact—risk of infection extremely small

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB How likely is that a Martian bacteria would be pathogenic for humans, or disruptive for an Earth ecosystem? An excellent analysis of these aspects have been provided by Schuerger, based on a plant infection model of pathogenicity (Schuerger, 1998). Terrestrial plant-microbe interaction can be classified by non-interactive, saprotrophism, necrotrophism, biotrophism, symbiosis and commensalism (Schuerger, 1998). The last four categories imply a certain degree of adaptation and co-evolution between the microbial life and the multicellular organism, and this is absent between microbial Martian life forms and humans (or other Earth organisms). This would imply that the most likely interaction between microbes on Mars and astronauts would be non-interactive or saprotrophic, and hence most likely nonpathogenic. The chance of a Martian microbe, adapted to extremely slow, cold and anaerobic conditions having the ability to attach to cells of a terrestrial host and invade its cells or tissues, and hence produce infection, in full competition with terrestrial microbes, is very small. Less likely is even transmission to a second 'vulnerable' host. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 70 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Diseases

Risk of infection so small that benefits outweigh

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB The chance of a human mission to Mars to encounter pathogenic microorganisms is small, but not zero. A set of safety measures to prevent, diagnose and eventually treat infections with Martian microorganisms should be considered (Table 1), and these may further diminish potential biohazards. Therefore, it may be concluded that the benefits of a mission to Mars, with all the scientific, technological and economical progress that is envisaged, heavily outweigh the low probability of an encounter with a pathogenic microbe, and therefore this should not be an impediment for pursuing human exploration of Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 71 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Humans will screw up Mars

The plan doesn’t utilize mars like we did earth, were we totally screwed that planet.

Wharris ‘11 [ James,Writer for Auxiliary memory, The Ethics of Interstellar Colonization, April 17, 2011, http://jameswharris.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-ethics-of-interstellar-colonization/ wfi-kc] If it’s a rocky world like Mars I would think there would be no problems at all, even though some people do advocate leaving Mars untouched. I think we at least have to establish two ends of the spectrum. On the left is a dead world, and the right is emerging intelligent life, somewhere in between is where we need to place our mark as the beginning point for not interfering. Let’s say we landed on a planet that had life like in the Jurassic, tiny brains and big bodies, and no chance of intelligent life appearing for a hundred million years, would it be okay to stay there and setup a colony? Ignoring the butterfly effect, it should be possible to colonize this world without misdirecting the path of its evolution. Now we couldn’t utilize this world like we’ve done Earth, using up all the resources and killing off endless species, but it might be possible to coexist with the indigenous life without doing much harm or changing its evolutionary direction Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 72 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Dust Storms

Mars is less dense than earth—makes dust storms much calmer

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 4.5. Dust Storms: Mars has intermittent local, and occasionally global dust storms with wind speeds up to 100 km/hour. Attempting to land through such an event would be a bad idea, and two Soviet probes committed to such a maelstrom by their uncontrollable flight systems were destroyed during landing in 1971. However, once on the ground, Martian dust storms present little hazard. Mars’ atmosphere has only about 1% the density of Earth at sea-level. Thus a wind with a speed of 100 km/hr on Mars only exerts the same dynamic pressure as a 10 km/hr breeze on Earth. The Viking landers endured many such events without damage. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 73 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 No Tech

We have the tech to go to Mars, can utilize new resources once we get there

Ellard, 2002 (David, “Paying for Mars.” Online, 12/27/2002, MB) We have the technology to go to Mars. That much is certain. When JFK, in the early sixties, declared that the US should go to the moon, no American had ever actually been in orbit! Today, going to Mars isn�t as daunting as the moon seemed in the sixties. We know all we need to send people there, and weve had thirty years to establish, at least on paper, a plan to do just that. Mission plans, such as Robert Zubrin�s Mars Direct, show us how to utilize the Martian atmosphere to produce fuel, cutting down dramatically the size and complexity of a mission, while actually increasing the safety and productiveness of the journey. In �The Case For Mars�, Zubrin shows us that there is nothing holding us back from the red planet. All the technological issues have been solved. We are ready to take the Martian challenge.

We have the tech to get to Mars, any additional tech needed will be developed once we are on the planet

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Promis of Mars.” Ad Astra May/June 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.htm] /WFI-MB The question of colonizing Mars is not fundamentally one of transportation. If we were to use the same heavy lift boosters used in the Mars Direct plan to launch people to Mars on one-way trips, firing them off at the same rate we currently launch the space shuttle, the United States today could populate Mars at a rate comparable to that at which the British colonized North America in the 1600s — and at lower expense relative to our resources. No, the problem of colonizing Mars is not that of moving large numbers to the Red Planet, but of the ability to use Martian resources to support an expanding population once they are there. The technologies required to do this will be developed at the first Mars base, which will thus act as the beachhead for the wave of immigrants to follow. Initial Mars Direct exploration missions approach Mars in a manner analogous to terrestrial hunter-gatherers, and utilize only its most readily available resource, the atmosphere, to meet the basic needs of fuel and oxygen. In contrast, a permanently staffed base will approach Mars from the standpoint of agricultural and industrial society. It will develop techniques for extracting water out of the soil, for conducting increasingly large-scale greenhouse agriculture, for making ceramics, metals, glasses and plastics out of local materials, and constructing large pressurized structures for human habitation and industrial and agricultural activity. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 74 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 No Tech

Tech development rate will be exponential, even if we don’t have it now we will eventually

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB The speed of light limitation is based on current human knowledge and our current understanding of the laws of nature. But, history has shown over and over how quickly our understanding can change. One hundred years ago the British scientist Lord Kelvin was discouraging physics students from entering the field of physics because, according to him, all the laws of nature had already been discovered and all that remained was to improve the accuracy of nature’s constants to 6 decimal points. Of course we now know how naive that opinion was because within just a few years after his pronouncement, relativity, quantum physics, and many new discoveries in astronomy and cosmology burst upon the scene. Without many of these discoveries our modern technology based civilization would not be possible. Nature reluctantly reveals itself and scientists often have a vested interested in maintaining the status quo. Max Planck, the father of modern quantum theory eloquently pointed this out with his now famous quote “Science advances funeral by funeral”. The universe has had at least 13.7 billion years to evolve to its current level of complexity. Surely our science which has only been a formal discipline for the last 400 years is incomplete, in some areas likely incorrect and has a long way to go before it reveals all of nature’s secrets to us. When Columbus made his first voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, the average speed of travel by ship was about 2 miles per hour. Even today, 500 years later, the maximum speed of surface ships traveling in the open ocean has increased only by a factor of 20, enough of an improvement to reduce the ocean transit time from 2 1/2 months to less than a week. But that’s based on a linear projection of the past. We have also developed new technologies that have given us exponential improvements in transit time. Today’s commercial airplanes cross the ocean in 5 hours or another factor of 24 increase in speed. With rocket propulsion we gain a further reduction of transit time to a mere 30 minutes, a factor of 10 in further reduction of transit time. Could Columbus have ever imagined technologies that could reduce his transit time by a factor of 3600?

Current tech is all that is needed for colonization

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 6. Conclusion In conclusion, the point needs to be made again. We are ready to go to Mars. Despite whatever issues that remain, the fundamental fact is that we are much better prepared today to send humans to Mars than we were to send people to the Moon in 1961, when John F. Kennedy initiated the Apollo program. Exploring Mars requires no miraculous new technologies, no orbiting spaceports, and no gigantic interplanetary space cruisers (Zubrin 1997). We can establish our first outpost on Mars within a decade. We and not some future generation can have the eternal honor of being the first pioneers of this new world for humanity. All that's needed is present-day technology, some 19th century industrial chemistry, some political vision, and a little bit of moxie. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 75 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 No Gravity

Artificial gravity solves the problems with zero gravity

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 4.2. Zero Gravity: Cosmonauts have experienced marked physiological deterioration after extended exposure to zero gravity. However a Mars mission can be flown employing artificial gravity generated by rotating the spacecraft. The engineering challenges associated with designing either rigid or tethered artificial gravity systems are modest, and make the entire issue of zero-gravity health effects on interplanetary missions moot. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 76 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Psychology

Humans won’t go crazy—were able to handle the psychological challenges of colonization

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 4.4. Human Factors: In popular media, it is frequently claimed that the isolation and stress associated with a 2.5 year round-trip Mars mission present insuperable difficulties. Upon consideration, there is little reason to believe that this is true. Compared to the stresses dealt with by previous generations of explorers and mariners, soldiers in combat, prisoners in prisons, refugees in hiding, and millions of other randomly selected people, those that will be faced by the hand-picked crew of Mars 1 seem modest. Certainly psychological factors are important (Bishop 2010; Fielder & Harrison, 2010; Harrison & Fielder 2010; Suedfeld 2010). However, any serious reading of previous history indicates that far from being the weak link in the chain of the piloted Mars mission, the human psyche is likely to be the strongest link in the chain as Apollo astronauts have testified (Mitchell & Staretz 2010; Schmitt 2010). Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 77 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Radiation

Colonists will be shielded from radiation, allowing for reproduction

Fischer, 2010 [Max, staffwriter for The Atlantic Wire, “Should we Colonize Mars….One Way?” Online, 10/20/2010, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2010/10/should-we-colonize-mars-one-way/18610/] /WFI-MB It's unclear whether Schulze-Makuch and Davies plan on having the first batch of four colonists reproduce, as they will "endure some radiation damage to their reproductive organs" during the trip. However, after "several decades," they foresee about 150 colonists, all living underground to protect from the sun's radioactive rays, "which would constitute a viable gene pool to allow the possibility of a successful long-term reproduction program."

Shields solve radiation

Minkel, 2011 [JR, staff writer for space.com, “Sex and Pregnancy on Mars: A Risky Proposition.” 2/11/2011, Online, http://www.space.com/10822-sex-mars-pregnancy-space-risks.html] /WFI-MB One hazard comes from solar flares, which spew energetic protons across the solar system. Although the timing and intensity of such outbursts is difficult to predict in advance, these particles would be relatively easy to shield against, Straume told SPACE.com. "A few centimeters of a material can knock them way down in intensity to acceptable levels," Straume said.

Colonists on Mars will be shielded from most of the harmful radiation—atmosphere and surface solve

Minkel, 2011 [JR, staff writer for space.com, “Sex and Pregnancy on Mars: A Risky Proposition.” 2/11/2011, Online, http://www.space.com/10822-sex-mars-pregnancy-space-risks.html] /WFI-MB Assuming everyone's gonads made the voyage unscathed, the prospects for successful reproduction should start to look up once they actually reach the Red Planet. There the atmosphere, and Mars, itself would soak up or slow down a good portion of the incoming radiation. Colonists could further shield themselves by putting a layer of ruddy Martian soil, or regolith, between themselves and the sky. Straume and his colleagues note that an intriguing site for a base near Mars– at least in terms of radiation exposure – might be the Martian moon Phobos, specifically Stickney crater, which is on the side of Phobos facing Mars. The high walls of the crater along with the Red Planet might obstruct up to 90 percent of cosmic rays in certain locations.

Radiation is untrue—risk is as low as smoking

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB 4.1. Radiation: It is alleged by some that the radiation doses involved in a Mars mission present insuperable risks, or are not well understood. This is untrue. Solar flare radiation, consisting of protons with energies of about 1 MeV, can be shielded by 12 cm of water or provisions, and there will be enough of such materials on board the ship to build an adequate pantry storm shelter for use in such an event. The residual cosmic ray dose, about 50 Rem for the 2.5 year mission, represents a statistical cancer risk of about 1%, roughly the same as that which would be induced by an average smoking habit over the same period. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 78 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T Unethical

The aff is ethical- human history is filled with small groups of people taking risks for the benefit of humanity

Gage 10 (Douglas W., PhD, “Mars Base First: A Program-level Optimization for Human Mars Exploration”, Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 12, August)

Some may object that a mission profile calling for an eight-year stay on the surface of Mars (and ten years away from Earth) is unreasonable – that the psychological stresses of living in such a small isolated group for so long would put the success of the mission, if not the crew’s survival, at unacceptable risk. However, the history (and especially the prehistory) of humanity is one of many small groups of people migrating into the unknown with no intention of returning, and, in fact, informal surveys suggest that many people would be willing to sign up for a one-way trip to Mars (Krauss, 2009). We find many examples of small groups that have successfully lived in nearly constant isolation, including bands of hunter-gatherers, Inuit family groups, pre- 20th century ship crews, castaways, and some soldiers and prisoners. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 79 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Wont Survive

Humans will survive on Mars

Black 03 [Richard, Richard Black is the BBC Science correspondent, Humans 'could survive Mars visit’ Online, 12/9/2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm, WFI-JG] Scientists say measurements taken by the US space agency's Mars Odyssey craft prove that a human mission could survive on the Martian surface. Instrument data show radiation around the Red Planet might cause some health problems but is unlikely to be fatal. Mars Odyssey has sent back a wealth of information about Earth's neighbour since it went into orbit two years ago. The new research was presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 80 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Budget/Econ DA

Mars is cheap, current funds allocated to exploration can solve for colonization

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB Mars is an excellent colonization spot and should be colonized because it is a great place to live. If we are going places as a species, we have to start somewhere. Right now, the level of space commitment by all actors on Earth is about $50 billion a year. This level of commitment would pay for about twenty Mars Direct-style missions every two years. This is a feasible budget for the colonization of Mars. Many technologies can be optimized if the focus of Earth space efforts was colonization. Cyclers could be placed in permanent Earth-Mars transfer orbit. In situ resource utilization could eliminate the need for hydrogen shipment from Earth. Better crew selection could eliminate the need for humans to take a return trip. If the goal of human presence on Mars is to colonize it, $50 billion a year can do it well. It will probably take decades of subsidy before a Mars colony could sustain itself. A twenty-year program of $50-billion-a-year subsidies would hit a trillion dollars. This is an affordable sum for a rich planet. It would be an excellent idea to get started if this were the only space colonization option. There is a much better option, however, teasing us as it hangs in the sky.

Cost is only 5 Billion—not that high

Ellard, 2002 (David, “Paying for Mars.” Online, 12/27/2002, MB) As I mentioned before, a Mars Direct style mission could be accomplished for less then five billion. Five billion dollars isn�t pocket change, and even when the ball gets rolling we might fall short, in which case any profits from launching satellites or space tourists will pay off our investors. But is five billion really that much? At least thirty billionaires could pay for it by themselves, or if the whole world chips in, it �s less then a dollar per person. Several corporations could afford five billion from profits alone. If every

Cost is cheap—20% of NASA budget

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Such is the basic Mars Direct plan. In 1990, when it was first put forward, it was viewed as too radical for NASA to consider seriously, but over the next several years with the encouragement of then NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Mike Griffin, the group at Johnson Space Center in charge of designing human Mars missions decided to take a good hard look at it. They produced a detailed study of a Design Reference Mission based on the Mars Direct plan but scaled up about a factor of 2 in expedition size compared to the original concept. They then produced a cost estimate for what a Mars exploration program based upon this expanded Mars Direct would cost. Their result; $50 billion, with the estimate produced by the same costing group that assigned a $400 billion price tag to the traditional cumbersome approach to human Mars exploration embodied in NASA's 1989 "90 Day Report." I believe that with further discipline applied to the mission design, the program cost could be brought down to the $30 to $40 billion range. Spent over ten years, this would imply an annual expenditure on the order of 20% of NASA’s budget, or about half a percent of the US military budget. It is a small price to pay for a new world. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 81 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Budget/Econ DA

NASA has the same budget, meaning it has the money and ability to colonize

Robert Zubrin 6-28-2011 [Robert, Robert Zubrin is an American aerospace engineer and author, best known for his advocacy of the manned exploration of Mars. He was the driving force behind Mars Direct—a proposal intended to produce significant reductions in the cost and complexity of such a mission, “The case for Mars: the plan to settle the red planet and why we must.” 6-28-2011, http://io9.com/5812255/the-case-for-mars-the-plan-to-settle-the-red-planet-and-why-we- must WFI-JG] If only NASA had the kind of funding it did during the Apollo era, it is claimed, we would see great accomplishments in human spaceflight. This excuse, however, is completely false. The fact of the matter is that in today's dollars, the average NASA budget between 1961 (when President Kennedy gave his speech announcing the Apollo program) and 1973 (when the final Apollo-Skylab mission was flown) was $19 billion per year, nearly exactly the same as NASA's budget is today, and has been, in round numbers, since about 1990. Nor is it the case that the Apollo era NASA was able to accomplish more in the human spaceflight area because it did so at the expense of robotic exploration. In fact, during that period the unmanned exploration program was more active than it has been over the past 15 years, with some 40 lunar and planetary probes launched. In fact, if we extend our baseline to 15 years, matching the 1961 to 1975 period against 1996 to 2010, we find that the earlier NASA launched 10 Mars probes with 8 successes, nearly identical (but slightly superior) in flight rate and batting average to the modern NASA's track record of 9 Mars probes with 7 successes. Yes, it is true that the NASA budget during the 1960's got a larger share of federal outlays, but that is not because NASA was richer, but because the nation was smaller and poorer. During the 1960s, America's population was 60 percent what it is today, and its GNP was 25 percent as great. These were hardly advantages for Apollo. Furthermore, the technology available to America a half century ago was vastly inferior to that of today. The men who designed Apollo did their calculations on slide rules, capable of performing, at most, one calculation per second, not computers doing billions. Yet they solved all the problems necessary to take us from nearly zero human spaceflight capability to landing men on the moon and returning them to Earth in eight years.

The plan would be a financial touchdown and would decrease space mission cost by 80% and would be politically good

Makuch and davies ’10 [dirk and paul, 1School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Washington State University 2Beyond Center, Arizona State University, To Boldly Go: A One-Way Human Mission to Mars, October – November 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars108.htmlwfi-kc ] In our view, however, many of these human and financial problems would be ameliorated by a one-way mission. It is important to realize that this is not a "suicide mission." The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony. They would be resupplied periodically from Earth, and eventually develop some "home grown" industry such as food production and mineral/chemical processing (Zubrin and Baker 1992; Zubrin and Wagner 1997). Their role would be to establish a "base camp" to which more colonists would eventually be sent, and to carry out important scientific and technological projects meanwhile. Of course, the life expectancy of the astronauts would be substantially reduced, but that would also be the case for a return mission. The riskiest part of space exploration is take-off and landing, followed by the exposure to space conditions. Both risk factors would be halved in a one-way mission, and traded for the rigors of life in a cramped and hostile environment away from sophisticated medical equipment. On the financial front, abandoning the need to send the fuel and supplies for the return journey would cut costs dramatically, arguably by about 80 percent. Furthermore, once a Mars base has been established, it would be politically much easier to find the funding for sustaining it over the long term than to mount a hugely expensive return mission. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 82 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Budget/Econ DA

Mars direct is cheaper than estimates

James C. McLane III, 11 On to Mars -- but not back to Earth, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/06/opinion/la-oe-mclane-mars-20110206, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF When we eliminate the requirement to bring the explorer back, we remove a major obstacle to mission practicality. Carrying a special return vehicle with rocket fuel to the surface of Mars, or somehow manufacturing fuel on the planet for a return launch, will not be feasible for decades. Planning is underway for a robotic mission to bring a one- or two-pound sample of Martian soil back to Earth for analysis, but even such a roundtrip mission to retrieve a tiny amount of dirt is a major technical challenge. For a human mission, the life support and resupply would be greatly simplified if it's a one-way trip and there is only one astronaut. In such an expedition, a small person would hold an advantage — a female astronaut might be preferable — because smaller bodies make less demand on life-support systems. Perhaps the first mission might consist of two people; maybe even a male/female team. That privileged couple would follow the tradition of creation stories of many earthly religions, becoming more than just historic characters — they would become legends.

NASA using budget money effectively

Kazan 2-3-2010 [Casey, Casey Kazan is part of the Daily Galaxy Editorial Staff, Is Colonizing Mars an Imperative? Obama's New Space Strategy Says "Yes”, 2-3-2010 http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/s-colonizing-space-an- imperative-obamas-new-space-strategy-says-yes-lays-groundwork-for-human-space-.html WFI-JG] Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments. Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said: We will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . as well as providing $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids. Even if we were to increase the international [space exploration] budget 20 times to make a serious effort to go into space, it would only be a small fraction of world GDP," he said. GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is a measure of a country's economic activity.

Colonization produces jobs

Jacob 2-11-2011 [Jijo, Jijo Jacob is a staff writer for the International Business Times, Mars for sale! NASA draws up plan to colonize red planet with cooperate help, 2-11-2011, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/111476/20110211/nasa-mars- colonization-red-planet-mission-space-one-way-corporate-sponsorship.htm WFI-JG] And there is more music to the ear: The researchers say the project will generate as many as 500,000 jobs in the U.S. over 10 years in aerospace and manufacturing sectors. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 83 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Budget/Econ DA

The plan , over ten year, would bring down the deficit by $30-$40 billion dollars

Zubrin ‘10 [ Robert, American aerospace engineer and author, Human Mars Exploration: The Time Is Now, october – november 2010, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html WFI-kc] Such is the basic Mars Direct plan. In 1990, when it was first put forward, it was viewed as too radical for NASA to consider seriously, but over the next several years with the encouragement of then NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Mike Griffin, the group at Johnson Space Center in charge of designing human Mars missions decided to take a good hard look at it. They produced a detailed study of a Design Reference Mission based on the Mars Direct plan but scaled up about a factor of 2 in expedition size compared to the original concept. They then produced a cost estimate for what a Mars exploration program based upon this expanded Mars Direct would cost. Their result; $50 billion, with the estimate produced by the same costing group that assigned a $400 billion price tag to the traditional cumbersome approach to human Mars exploration embodied in NASA's 1989 "90 Day Report." I believe that with further discipline applied to the mission design, the program cost could be brought down to the $30 to $40 billion range. Spent over ten years, this would imply an annual expenditure on the order of 20% of NASA’s budget, or about half a percent of the US military budget. It is a small price to pay for a new world.

Mars colonization creates as many as 500,000 jobs

Jacob 11 [Jijo, writer for the International Business Times, “Mars for sale! NASA draws up plan to’colonize’ red planet with corporate help”, The International Business Times, 2-11-11, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/111476/20110211/nasa-mars-colonization-red-planet-mission-space-one-way- corporate-sponsorship.htm WFI-MZ] Researchers at NASA have drawn up a plan to make the greatest adventure in the history of the human race possible - sending a human mission to the red planet and, hold your breath, colonize it! And the daring act of "selling" and carving up the red planet will be made possible with the help of corporate bigwigs who will paint the space ships in their logo colors. NASA scientists have said in a research paper that corporate financing is the right way to support a $160-billion project to take human beings to Mars and start a colony there, according to space.com. Joel Levine, a senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, calls is a "revolutionary business proposal" as it removes budgetary bottlenecks that have diluted the Mars mission's focus over the years. And there is more music to the ear: The researchers say the project will generate as many as 500,000 jobs in the U.S. over 10 years in aerospace and manufacturing sectors. The researchers discussed the plan in the book, "The Human Mission to Mars: Colonizing the Red Planet," which was published in December. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 84 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T Spending DA- Mars pays for itself

No Link-Aggressive marketing will guarantee the Mars mission pays for itself

Joseph 10 (Rhawn, PhD, “Marketing Mars: Financing the Human Mission to Mars and the Colonization of Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 12, August)

Of course, battle cries will not get us to Mars. It will take money. Those funds can be easily raised through advertising and clever marketing, the selling of exclusive broadcast and all media rights, the licensing and selling of Mission to Mars-related merchandise, paid commercial endorsements by astronauts, paid corporate sponsorships (The Human Mission to Mars is sponsored by...), individual sponsorships, the selling of Mars real estate and mineral rights, and the auctioning of naming rights to corporations who will bid against one another to have the Mars Landing Crafts and Mars' Colonies and Base Camps named after their companies (e.g. the Google Mars Express, the Microsoft Mars Lander) with bidding starting at $10 billion dollars.

No Link-Selling real estate pays for the colony

Although the Space Treaty does not bar private ownership of "celestial bodies", this does not mean that someone can simply say: "I own Mars". Legal precedent requires possession. Consider, for example, maritime salvage law (also known as Admiralty and Maritime Law, and the Law of Salvage), which explicitly states that to claim ownership, the party making the claim must first make contact with and secure the property which must be beyond or outside a nation's national territory (Norris, 1991; Shoenbaum, 1994). In terms of "salvage" the original owner is entitled to a percentage of whatever is recovered. In the case of Mars, there are no original owners (and if there were, they are long dead and gone). Therefore, although some may argue that the 1967 treaty bars national ownership of Mars, the treaty does not apply to private ownership. This means that those who first arrive on Mars, may claim Mars (or all areas of Mars explored by humans) as private property. They may also sell portions of this property to other private parties or corporations. What might humans of Earth pay to own an inch or acre of Mars? Traditionally, mineral resources within national territory, belong to the government ruling that territory. Corporations and individuals must license the right to extract and sell those resources. Therefore, if those who first take possession of Mars form a government, they may claim ownership of all mineral and other resources (e.g. minerals, metals, gemstones, ores, salt, water). However, in the early history of the United States, private owners owned both "surface rights" and "mineral rights" and they had the right to sell, lease, or give away these rights. According to the Mars Mineral Spectoscropy Database of Mount Holyoke College, a wide variety of over 50 minerals may exist on Mars. Gold, silver, platinum, and other precious metals are likely to exist in abundance above and below the Martian surface; spewed out by volcanoes, and produced by ancient hydrothermal activity and circulating goundwater which acted as a concentrater. Therefore, once humans land on Mars, Martian mineral rights can be sold to the highest bidders, and Martian real estate can be sold by the inch or acre, with all these funds going to support the Human Mission to Mars and the colonization of the Red Planet. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 85 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Politics- Mars Popular

Mars direct is bipartisan, got massive support

David Boswell was a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference,2003 Some thoughts on Mars Direct, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/65/1, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF At the end of October, Robert Zubrin had the chance to present his Mars Direct plan to the Senate Commerce Committee as part of their hearings on the future of the US space program. The plan was well received and seemed to resonate with the desire to craft a new destination-driven policy for NASA that will take us beyond Earth orbit again. Mars is the obvious compelling destination and Mars Direct is the obvious choice for how to get us there.

Mars colonization attracts popular support

Henry Reske, 11 Mars Colonization Attracts Popular Support, http://www.newsmax.com/US/MarsColony/2011/05/29/id/398149, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF A one-way ticket to Mars does not seem like something that would get many takers. However, when two scientists brought up the idea in the Journal of Cosmology, more than 1,000 people said they would be willing to help colonize the Red Planet, The Washington Post reports. Paul Davies of Arizona State University and Dirk Schulze-Makuch of the University of Washington proposed a one-way colonizing mission to the fourth planet from the sun. Davies told the Post that “our initial goal was to find a way to develop a human mission to Mars that could actually take place, that wouldn’t cost so much that it would be impossible to pull off. And the one-way trip, as we costed it out, would be about one-quarter the price of a there-and-back mission.” The response showed that the spirit of exploration is alive and well, Davies said. “Just like with earlier explorers, they are prepared to set out knowing they won’t come back, but willing to do it because their time on Mars would be so remarkable,” he said.

Obama pushing for space colonization

Daily Galaxy, 10 Is Colonizing Mars an Imperative? Obama's New Space Strategy Says "Yes", http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/02/s-colonizing-space-an-imperative-obamas-new-space-strategy- says-yes-lays-groundwork-for-human-space-.html, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF The Obama Administration unveiled its new far-sighted budget for NASA, which scraps moon missions but puts the focus on developing new space technologies, exploring the solar system with robots, and pushing humans closer to living offworld. All of which will be funded a budget increase to NASA of $6 billion over five years. Under the new budget, we'd see a revamped NASA program focused on scientific innovation, rather than recreating old experiments. Specifically, as NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden said: We will invent and demonstrate large-scale, new and novel approaches to spaceflight such as in-orbit fuel depots and rendezvous and docking technologies, and closed-loop life support systems so that our future robotic and human exploration missions are both highly capable and more affordable . . . as well as providing $3 billion over five years for robotic exploration precursor missions that will pave the way for later human exploration of the moon, Mars and nearby asteroids. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 86 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Politics- Mars Popular

Human missions to Mars generate public support they are key

Oostveldt, De Vos, and Dierks, 2010 [Patrick, Winnok, and Birger, “Bioimaging and Cytometry Department of Molecular Biology @ Ghent University, “Interplanetary Space Travel and Long-Term Habitation on Mars.” Journal of Cosmology, Oct-Nov., 2010, Vol. 12, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars150.html] /WFI-MB Despite the tremendous possibility to obtain valuable scientific data and results by robotic planetary exploration it is an evident next step that sooner or later a human mission to Mars should become an irresistible attraction for mankind once different successful robot missions are realised. With the finalization of the International Space Station (ISS) in sight, a permanent lunar base and a manned mission to Mars are the next big step in human space exploration. Robotic exploration has proven the performance of state of the art technology extra terra and as it successfully proceeds, broadens the necessary political and financial support for the realisation of a human mission to Mars. However, human participation will be essential to perform repair or replacement operations of defective equipment. The Hubble Space Telescope servicing missions carried out by the Space Shuttle (STS 61 (1993), STS 82 (1997), STS103 (1999), STS109 (2002) and STS125(2009)), show that a human flight program can upgrade robotic explorations. Through servicing and improving performance of earlier instruments not planned before the lifetime of the Hubble telescope is extended at least for another decade. Moreover, without the participation of man, the public support for space faring programs will probably be smaller, thereby making it more difficult to allocate the required budgets. After more than 50 years of space exploration it has become obvious that human missions cannot be successful without the combination of advanced robotic instruments and human flexibility. Robust and multifunctional instruments are necessary not only to reach specified goals, but also to set up life support systems (LSS) that enable long- term space residence.

Congress supports and approves the plan

Malik ’10 [tariq, chief financial officer at reef resources, Mars, Here We Come! Congress Approves $19 Billion NASA Budget, 9/10/10 http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/09/30/mars-asteroid-congress-approves-nasa-budget/ wfi- kc] Congress passed a vital NASA authorization bill late Wednesday, paving the way for an extra space shuttle flight next year and a new human spaceflight plan that takes aim at missions to an asteroid -- and ultimately even to Mars. The NASA authorization bill approved by the House includes a $19 billion budget in 2011 for the U.S. space agency, and a total of $58 billion through 2013. It paves the way for several NASA projects, among them a new heavy-lift rocket for deep space missions and funding to aid the development of commercial space vehicles for eventual NASA use.

Obama would like to see the plan

Borenstien and werner ‘10 [seth and erica, Science Writer at The Associated Press, Obama on mars landing “I’d like to see it”, 04/16/10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/16/obama-on-mars-landing-i-e_n_540302.html# wfi-kc) President Barack Obama boldly predicted Thursday his new plans for space exploration would lead American astronauts on historic, almost fantastic journeys to an asteroid and then to Mars – and in his lifetime – relying on rockets and propulsion still to be imagined and built. "I expect to be around to see it," he said of pioneering U.S. trips starting with a landing on an asteroid – a colossal feat in itself – before the long-dreamed-of expedition to Mars. He spoke near the historic Kennedy Space Center launch pads that sent the first men to the moon, a blunt rejoinder to critics, including several former astronauts, who contend his planned changes will instead deal a staggering blow to the nation's manned space program. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 87 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Kritiks- Mars Colonization Solves Leftist K

Establishment of a Martian society will create the opportunity to solve nearly every social inequality and form of marginalization

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] To see best why 21st century humanity will desperately need an open frontier on Mars, we need to look at modern Western humanist culture and see what makes it so much more desirable a mode of society than anything that has ever existed before. Then we need to see how everything we hold dear will be wiped out if the frontier remains closed. The essence of humanist society is that it values human beings — human life and human rights are held precious beyond price. Such notions have been for several thousand years the core philosophical values of Western civilization, dating back to the Greeks and the Judeo-Christian ideas of the divine nature of the human spirit. Yet they could never be implemented as a practical basis for the organization of society until the great explorers of the age of discovery threw open a New World in which the dormant seed of humanism contained within medieval Christendom could grow and blossom forth into something the likes of which the world had never seen before. The problem with Christendom was that it was fixed — it was a play for which the script had been written and the leading roles both chosen and assigned. The problem was not that there were insufficient natural resources to go around — medieval Europe was not heavily populated, and there were plenty of forests and other wild areas — the problem was that all the resources were owned. A ruling class had been selected and a set of ruling institutions, ideas and customs had been selected, and by the law of "Survival of the Firstest," none of these could be displaced. Furthermore, not only had the leading roles been chosen, but so had those of the supporting cast and chorus, and there were only so many such parts to go around. If you wanted to keep your part, you had to keep your place, and there was no place for someone without a part. The New World changed all that by supplying a place in which there were no established ruling institutions, an improvisational theater big enough to welcome all comers with no parts assigned. On such a stage, the players are not limited to the conventional role of actors — they become playwrights and directors as well. The unleashing of creative talent that such a novel situation allows is not only a great deal of fun for those lucky enough to be involved, it changes the view of the spectators as to the capabilities of actors in general. People who had no role in the old society could define their role in the new. People who did not "fit in" in the Old World could discover and demonstrate that far from being worthless, they were invaluable in the new, whether they went there or not. The New World destroyed the basis of aristocracy and created the basis of democracy. It allowed the development of diversity by allowing escape from those institutions that imposed uniformity. It destroyed a closed intellectual world by importing unsanctioned data and experience. It allowed progress by escaping the hold of those institutions whose continued rule required continued stagnation, and it drove progress by defining a situation in which innovation to maximize the capabilities of the limited population available was desperately needed. It raised the dignity of workers by raising the price of labor and by demonstrating for all to see that human beings can be the creators of their world. In America, from Colonial times through the 19th century when cities were rapidly being built, people understood that America was not something one simply lived in — it was a place one helped build. People were not simply inhabitants of their world. They were makers of their world. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 88 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Mars settlement is key to higher labor value, dignity and human worth

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] The parallel between the Martian frontier and that of 19th century America as technology drivers is, if anything, vastly understated. America drove technological progress in the last century because its western frontier created a perpetual labor shortage back East, thus forcing the development of labor saving machinery and providing a strong incentive for improvement of public education so that the skills of the limited labor force available could be maximized. This condition no longer holds true in America. In fact, far from prizing each additional citizen, immigrants are no longer welcome here, and a vast "service sector" of bureaucrats and menials has been created to absorb the energies of the majority of the population which is excluded from the productive parts of the economy. Thus in the late 20th century, and increasingly in the 21st, each additional citizen is and will be regarded as a burden. On 21st century Mars, on the other hand, conditions of labor shortage will apply with a vengeance. Indeed, it can be safely said that no commodity on 21st century Mars will be more precious, more highly valued and more dearly paid for than human labor time. Workers on Mars will be paid more and treated better than their counterparts on Earth. Just as the example of 19th century America changed the way the common man was regarded and treated in Europe, so the impact of progressive Martian social conditions will be felt on Earth as well as on Mars. A new standard will be set for a higher form of humanist civilization on Mars, and, viewing it from afar, the citizens of Earth will rightly demand nothing less for themselves. Colonization and world creation solves your K, creates a new branch of humanity

Zubrin, 2010 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “Human Mars Exploration: The Time is Now.” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol. 12, 3549-3557, October-November, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars111.html] /WFI-MB Reason # 3: For the Future: Mars is not just a scientific curiosity, it is a world with a surface area equal to all the continents of Earth combined, possessing all the elements that are needed to support not only life, but technological civilization. As hostile as it may seem, the only thing standing between Mars and habitability is the need to develop a certain amount of Red Planet know-how. This can and will be done by those who go there first to explore. Mars is the New World. Someday millions of people will live there. What language will they speak? What values and traditions will they cherish, to spread from there as humanity continues to move out into the solar system and beyond? When they look back on our time, will any of our other actions compare in value to what we do today to bring their society into being? Today, we have the opportunity to be the founders, the parents and shapers of a new and dynamic branch of the human family, and by so doing, put our stamp upon the future. It is a privilege not to be disdained lightly. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 89 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Only mars colonization can solve the demand for resources that makes violent competition inevitable—any alternative will fail unless we use colonization to unite humanity

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] There are greater threats that a humanist society faces in a closed world than the return of oligarchy, and if the frontier remains closed, we are certain to face them in the 21st century. These threats are the spread of various sorts of anti-human ideologies and the development of political institutions that incorporate the notions that spring from them as a basis of operation. At the top of the list of such pathological ideas that tend to spread naturally in a closed society is the Malthus theory, which holds that since the world's resources are more or less fixed, population growth must be restricted or all of us will descend into bottomless misery. Malthusianism is scientifically bankrupt — all predictions made upon it have been wrong, because human beings are not mere consumers of resources. Rather, we create resources by the development of new technologies that find use for them. The more people, the faster the rate of innovation. This is why (contrary to Malthus) as the world's population has increased, the standard of living has increased, and at an accelerating rate. Nevertheless, in a closed society Malthusianism has the appearance of self-evident truth, and herein lies the danger. It is not enough to argue against Malthusianism in the abstract — such debates are not settled in academic journals. Unless people can see broad vistas of unused resources in front of them, the belief in limited resources tends to follow as a matter of course. And if the idea is accepted that the world's resources are fixed, then each person is ultimately the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation. The inevitable result is tryanny, war and genocide. Only in a universe of unlimited resources can all men be brothers. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 90 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Kritiks- Mars k2 New World

Establishing a civilization on Mars would allow humanity to eliminate the negative aspects of our civilization—it is key to a new world

Schmidt, 2008 [Laurie, Popular science correspondent, “A conversation with Robert Zubrin.” 12/2/2008, Online, http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-12/conversation-robert-zubrin] /WFI-MB Why did you write How to Live on Mars and why now? I wrote it to excite a new and younger generation. I grew up in the Apollo era, and there needs to be literature to capture the imagination of the new younger generation. In the book there's a vision of a future civilization living and growing on Mars -- it's about creating a new branch of human civilization. As I see it, that new branch will have many of the positive and some of the negative aspects of America when it was young -- a place where the rules haven't been written yet. I think that when humans get around to exploring and building cities and towns on Mars, it will be viewed as one of the great times of humanity, a time when people set foot on another world and had the freedom to make their own world.

Mars colonization and world creation is key to human freedom

Schmidt, 2008 [Laurie, Popular science correspondent, “A conversation with Robert Zubrin.” 12/2/2008, Online, http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2008-12/conversation-robert-zubrin] /WFI-MB I think that this freedom to be the maker of your own world instead of simply being the inhabitant of one that has already been made is a truly grand form of human freedom. We had that during the period from Plymouth Rock through the closing of the American frontier in the late 1890s. There's a famous quote from a great historian, Walter Prescott Webb, that says "People will miss the frontier more than words can ever express. For hundreds of years they heard its call and bet their lives and fortune on its outcome." This is why we still look back today at the time of the American frontier as a great time, despite the fact that it was filled with all kinds of harsh experiences and heartbreak. So with Mars, there will be grand successes and there will be heartbreak. Not everyone will strike it rich, but everyone will get a chance for a new start. There's a reason why millions of people in the Old World sold everything they had to get a ticket on a ship to get them to America. And for some of them it didn't work out so well. But it did for enough of them that they're still coming today.

Mars key to new human civilizations, innovation and social advancement

Zubrin, 96 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Case For Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra July/August 1996, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-colonize.html] /WFI-MB But despite the shortsighted calculations of eighteenth-century European statesmen and financiers, the true value of America never was as a logistical support base for West Indies sugar and spice trade, inland fur trade, or as a potential market for manufactured goods. The true value of America was as the future home for a new branch of human civilization, one that as a combined result of its humanistic antecedents and its frontier conditions was able to develop into the most powerful engine for human progress and economic growth the world had ever seen. The wealth of America was in fact that she could support people, and that the right kind of people chose to go to her. People create wealth. People are wealth and power. Every feature of Frontier American life that acted to create a practical can-do culture of innovating people will apply to Mars a hundred-fold. Mars is a harsher place than any on Earth. But provided one can survive the regimen, it is the toughest schools that are the best. The Martians shall do well. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 91 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T Anthropocentrism

Turn-Human-centered perspective key to colonizing Mars

Gage 10 (Douglas W., PhD, “Mars Base First: A Program-level Optimization for Human Mars Exploration”, Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 12, August)

In fact, the successful development of an effective base on Mars will require more than a solid systems centric engineering perspective; it will also require a human-centric perspective, involving numerous social as well as technical disciplines. In essence, we are attempting to design the smallest-scale possible viable human economy and supporting ecology, and we don’t know in advance what this "nano- society" will look like. But NASA as an organization is focused on the "rocket science." To understate the case considerably, "studies of surface activities and related systems have not always been carried out to the same breadth or depth as those focused on the space transportation and entry or ascent systems needed for a Mars mission" (NASA, 2001, p. 1). Perhaps the National Science Foundation (NSF), with its broad scientific purview and experience managing U.S. Antarctic bases, might effectively participate in the development of the Mars base. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 92 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Kritiks- Expansionism Good

Mars enables an expansionist spirit that preserves freedom, dignity, creativity and value

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Western humanist civilization as we know and value it today was born in expansion, grew in expansion and can only exist in a dynamic expanding state. While some form of human society might persist in a non-expanding world, that society will not feature freedom, creativity, individuality, or progress, and placing no value on those aspects of humanity that differentiate us from animals, it will place no value on human rights or human life as well. Such a dismal future might seem an outrageous prediction, except for the fact that for nearly all of its history most of humanity has been forced to endure such static modes of social organization, and the experience has not been a happy one. Free societies are the exception in human history — they have only existed during the four centuries of frontier expansion of the West. That history is now over. The frontier opened by the voyage of Christopher Columbus is now closed. If the era of western humanist society is not to be seen by future historians as some kind of transitory golden age, a brief shining moment in an otherwise endless chronicle of human misery, then a new frontier must be opened. Mars beckons. But Mars is only one planet, and with humanity's powers over nature rising exponentially as they would in an age of progress that an open Martian frontier portends, the job of transforming and settling it is unlikely to occupy our energies for more than three or four centuries. Does the settling of Mars then simply represent an opportunity to prolong, but not save a civilization based upon dynamism? Isn't it the case that humanist civilization is ultimately doomed anyway? I think not. The universe is vast. Its resources, if we can access them, are truly infinite. During the four centuries of the open frontier on Earth, science and technology have advanced at an astonishing pace. The technological capabilities achieved during the 20th century would dwarf the expectations of any observer from the 19th, exceed the dreams of one from the 18th, and appear outright magical to someone from the 17th century. The nearest stars are incredibly distant, about 100,000 times as far away as Mars. Yet, Mars itself is about 100,000 times as far from Earth as America is from Europe. If the past four centuries of progress have multiplied our reach by so great a ratio, might not four more centuries of freedom do the same again? There is ample reason to believe that they would. Terraforming Mars will drive the development of new and more powerful sources of energy; settling the Red Planet will drive the development of ever faster modes of space transportation. Both of these capabilities in turn will open up new frontiers ever deeper into the outer solar system, and the harder challenges posed by these new environments will drive the two key technologies of power and propulsion ever more forcefully. The key is not to let the process stop. If it is allowed to stop for any length of time, society will crystallize into a static form that is inimical to the resumption of progress. That is what defines the present age as one of crisis. Our old frontier is closed. The first signs of social crystallization are clearly visible. Yet progress, while slowing, is still extant: Our people still believe in it and our ruling institutions are not yet incompatible with it. We still possess the greatest gift of the inheritance of a 400-year long Renaissance: To wit, the capacity to initiate another by opening the Martian frontier. If we fail to do so, our culture will not have that capacity long. Mars is harsh. Its settlers will need not only technology, but the scientific outlook, creativity and freethinking individualistic inventiveness that stand behind it. Mars will not allow itself to be settled by people from a static society — those people won't have what it takes. We still do. Mars today waits for the children of the old frontier, but Mars will not wait forever. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 93 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Kritiks- Frontier Good

Frontier logic is good—the frontier provided by Mars is necessary to promote a progressive mentality that will benefit the globe through innovation, development and the creation of a new society and values

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] "To the frontier the American intellect owes its striking characteristics," Turner thundered, "That coarseness of strength combined with acuteness and inquisitiveness; that practical, inventive turn of mind, quick to find expedients; that masterful grasp of material things, lacking in the artistic but powerful to effect great ends; that restless, nervous energy; that dominant individualism, working for good and evil, and withal that buoyancy and exuberance that comes from freedom — these are the traits of the frontier, or traits called out elsewhere because of the existence of the frontier." Turner rolled on, ramming his points home, "For a moment, at the frontier, the bonds of custom are broken and unrestraint is triumphant. There is no tabula rasa. The stubborn American environment is there with its imperious summons to accept its conditions; the inherited ways of doing things are also there; and yet, in spite of the environment, and in spite of custom, each frontier did indeed furnish a new opportunity, a gate of escape from the bondage of the past; and freshness, and confidence, and scorn of older society, impatience of its restraints and its ideas, and indifference to its lessons, have accompanied the frontier." "What the Mediterranean Sea was to the Greeks, breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, calling out new institutions and activities, that, and more, the ever retreating frontier has been so to the United States directly, and to the nations of Europe more remotely. And now, four centuries from the discovery of America, at the end of a hundred years of life under the Constitution, the frontier has gone..." The Turner thesis was a bombshell, which within a few years created an entire school of historians who proceeded to demonstrate that not only American culture, but the entire western progressive humanist civilization that America has generally represented in its most distilled form resulted from the great frontier of global settlement opened to Europe by the Age of Exploration. Turner presented his paper in 1893. Just three years earlier, in 1890, the American frontier was declared closed: the line of settlement that had always defined the furthermost existence of western expansion had actually met the line of settlement coming east from California. Now, a century later, we face the question that Turner himself posed — what if the frontier is gone? What happens to America and all it has stood for? Can a free, egalitarian, democratic, innovating society with a can-do spirit be preserved in the absence of room to grow? Perhaps the question was premature in Turner's time, but not now. Currently we see around us an ever more apparent loss of vigor of American society: increasing fixity of the power structure and bureaucratization of all levels of society; impotence of political institutions to carry off great projects; the cancerous proliferation of regulations affecting all aspects of public, private and commercial life; the spread of irrationalism; the banalization of popular culture; the loss of willingness by individuals to take risks, to fend for themselves or think for themselves; economic stagnation and decline; the deceleration of the rate of technological innovation and a loss of belief in the idea of progress itself. Everywhere you look, the writing is on the wall. Without a frontier from which to breathe life, the spirit that gave rise to the progressive humanistic culture that America has offered to the world for the past several centuries is fading. The issue is not just one of national loss — human progress needs a vanguard, and no replacement is in sight. The creation of a new frontier thus presents itself as America's and humanity's greatest social need. Nothing is more important: Apply what palliatives you will, without a frontier to grow in, not only American society, but the entire global civilization based upon Western enlightenment values of humanism, reason, science and progress will die. I believe that humanity's new frontier can only be on Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 94 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Agent CP- Perm Solvency

U.S. needs cooperation in mars direct plan

David Boswell was a speaker at the 1991 International Space Development Conference,2003 Some thoughts on Mars Direct, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/65/1, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF The plan offers three suggestions for how a manned mission could be funded: an Apollo style mission financed by a single country, a multinational effort where the costs are spread among a number of participants, and a prize-based system that would encourage private companies to fulfill the mission. At the time the book was written, the Apollo type of mission was the only one that had been successfully accomplished. The construction of the International Space Station had not started and there were good reasons to believe then that it might never get built. The X Prize has still not been claimed by a private company, but it looks like it’s only a matter of time. Although the space station is not completed yet, the last several years have shown how multiple agencies can work together successfully on a very complicated mission. Our experience with the station has also given us an example of the dangers involved in a “go it alone” approach. If the United States had built the station on its own, as was originally intended, the station would have been left empty after the Columbia disaster and, like Skylab, might have fallen out of orbit if shuttle service was unable to resume in time to boost the station’s altitude. Fortunately, our international partners are currently able to provide alternate access to orbit that has allowed crews to continue occupying the station after the loss of the shuttle. On a manned mission to Mars, Russia, Europe, Japan, China or any of the other countries that might take part in the mission would be able to help in similar ways. Beyond simply sharing the expense, other agencies can save time and money by offering existing services that are required in the plan that would otherwise need to be developed specifically for the mission. What about the other two options? Although extremely successful, the Apollo program was born out of a unique period of world history. Without a motivating force similar to the Cold War it would seem impossible today to get the same amount of political will to spend the time and money required for a mission to Mars. It also seems that the prize based approach is not quite ready for this mission— private companies need to be able to put people in orbit before being able to send them to Mars. Working with our international partners might not just be our best option, but our only option for a manned mission. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 95 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T One Way CP

No Solvency- Public backlash and government regulation will cripple a one way trip to Mars- only explorers returning to Earth solves the aff

Carberry, Westenberg and Ortner 10 (CA, Artemis, and Blake, Executive Director, President of Explore Mars Inc, Project Leader ISRU Challenge, “The Mars Prize and the Private Missions to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

The question is not can we mount a private one-way mission to Mars relatively cheaply? The question is whether it is politically and ethically feasible? The United States government would never send a one-way mission. It has become far too risk averse to even consider such a concept. The question therefore is, would the private sector? Companies and private individuals are very much susceptible to political pressure and public outcry. Once it became known that a consortium or individual was going to send someone on what could be a suicide mission to Mars (even if the person funding the mission was the person making the trip), there would be a massive national and international debate on the topic. While this could have positive aspects, it could also present some very negative consequences, particularly if Congress and other bodies create legal and regulatory roadblocks – this could also hinder other space exploration efforts. Another problem with a one-way mission to Mars is that there will be the limited direct return from the Mars travelers. There would be nothing so inspiring as Mars explorers returning from their voyages and sharing their first hand accounts with the world. This could be just as inspiring to the population of Earth as any electronic updates they may provide. As with the returning tales of Antarctic, African, and other explorers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, returning Mars explorers will certainly inflame our passion for exploration. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 96 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T Privatization CP- Public Action Key

Privatization stalls scientific progress- for-profit missions fail inevitably

Kiger 11 (Patrick J., Science author for the LA Times, “Is this a good idea? A private mission to Mars?”, http://blogs.discovery.com/good_idea/2011/05/is-this-a-good-idea-a-private- mission-to-mars.html May 10)

I also can think of a lot of reasons why allowing the private sector to explore and possibly colonize Mars could be a bad idea, as well. For one, the primary purpose of such a venture would have to be generating a profit, rather than simply acquiring knowledge and making it available to scientists all over the world. What if private Mars explorers chose to keep their research data proprietary and gave access only to those willing to pay a hefty price? That could stunt scientific progress. Additionally, there aren't any government regulatory agencies on Mars to oversee how a commercial colony and protect workers or the Martian environment. We could end up with a 21st-century version of the Dutch East India Company, the outfit that basically was given free license to commit all sorts of crimes to benefit its shareholders. (Here's an insightful blog post by libertarian commentator Bonnie Kristian on that subject. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 97 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A/T-Privatization CP-Perm Solvency

Perm- Private companies and NASA can work together to colonize Mars

Boyle 11 (Alan, MSNCB Correspondent, “Cosmic Log- SpaceX Chief sets his sights on Mars”, http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/13/7078446-spacex-chief-sets-his- sights-on-mars 7/13)

The company is also in line to receive $75 million more from NASA to start turning the Dragon into a crew- worthy space taxi for astronauts by 2015 or so. And just today, the company broke ground on a California launch pad that could be used by the next-generation Falcon Heavy rocket starting in 2013. Once the Dragon and the Falcon Heavy are in service, the main pieces would be in place for a Mars mission, Musk said. "One of the ideas we're talking to NASA about is ... using Dragon as a science delivery platform for Mars and a few other locations," he told me. "This would be possibly be several tons of payload — actually, a single Dragon mission could land with more payload than has been delivered to Mars cumulatively in history." advertisement SpaceX is working with NASA's Ames Research Center in California on an interplanetary mission concept that could theoretically be put into effect for a launch "five or six years from now," Musk said.

Perm- Public/Private partnerships work most effectively

So it sounds as if you see a role for SpaceX in exploration beyond Earth orbit. Do you see any scenario where a mission to the moon or Mars could be completely private-sector? A: It's not out of the question. I do think missions like that are ideally handled as public-private partnerships. There are questions about how you'd pay for the missions. But the absolute goal of SpaceX is to develop the technologies to make life multiplanetary, which means being able to transport huge volumes of people and cargo to Mars. So we'll do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 98 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Moon Colonization CP

Moon colonization can’t solve—lack of water, metals, and volcanic processes

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB Among extraterrestrial bodies in our solar system, Mars is unique in that it possesses all the raw materials required to support not only life, but a new branch of human civilization. This uniqueness is illustrated most clearly if we contrast Mars with the Earth's Moon, the most frequently cited alternative location for extraterrestrial human colonization. In contrast to the Moon, Mars is rich in carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen, all in biologically readily accessible forms such as CO2 gas, nitrogen gas, and water ice and permafrost. Carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen are only present on the Moon in parts per million quantities, much like gold in sea water. Oxygen is abundant on the Moon, but only in tightly bound oxides such as SiO2, Fe2O3, MgO, and Al2O3, which require very high energy processes to reduce. Current knowledge indicates that if Mars were smooth and all it's ice and permafrost melted into liquid water, the entire planet would be covered with an ocean over 100 meters deep. This contrasts strongly with the Moon, which is so dry that if concrete were found there, Lunar colonists would mine it to get the water out. Thus, if plants were grown in greenhouses on the Moon ( a very difficult proposition, as we shall see) most of their biomass material would have to be imported. The Moon is also deficient in about half the metals (for example copper) of interest to industrial society, as well as many other elements of interest such as sulfur and phosphorus. Mars has every required element in abundance. Moreover, on Mars, as on Earth, hydrologic and volcanic processes have occurred, which is likely to have concentrated various elements into local concentrations of high-grade mineral ore. Indeed, the geologic history of Mars has been compared with that of Africa7, with very optimistic inferences as to its mineral wealth implied as a corollary. In contrast, the Moon has had virtually no history of water or volcanic action, with the result that it is basically composed of trash rocks with very little differentiation into ores that represent useful concentrations of anything interesting.

Moon fails—lack of hydrogen, carbon and nitrogen make colonization impossible

Zubrin, 94 [Robert, Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Significance of the Martian Frontier.” Ad Astra, September/October 1994, Online, http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-frontier.html] Why then not the Moon? The answer is because there's not enough there. True, the Moon has a copious supply of most metals and oxygen, in the form of oxidized rock, and a fair supply of solar energy, but that's about it. For all intents and purposes, the Moon has no hydrogen, nitrogen or carbon — three of the four elements most necessary for life. (They are present in the Lunar soil, but only in parts per million quantities, somewhat like gold in sea water. If there were concrete on the Moon, Lunar colonists would mine it to get its water out.) You could bring seeds to the Moon and grow plants in enclosed greenhouses there, but nearly every atom of carbon, nitrogen and hydrogen that goes into making those plants would have to be imported from another planet. While sustaining a Lunar scientific base under such conditions is relatively straightforward, growing a civilization there would be impossible. The difficulties involved in supporting significant populations in artificial orbiting space colonies would be even greater. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 99 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

A2 Moon Colonization CP

Moon can’t solve agriculture—plant life will die from lack of atmosphere

Zubrin, 95 [Robert, Aerospace Engineer for Lockheed Martin with a PhD in Nuclear Engineering, “The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization, online, JBIS 48, 407, 1995, http://www.aleph.se/Trans/Tech/Space/mars.html] /WFI-MB But the biggest problem with the Moon, as with all other airless planetary bodies and proposed artificial free-space colonies (such as those proposed by Gerard O'Neill8) is that sunlight is not available in a form useful for growing crops. This is an extremely important point and it is not well understood. Plants require an enormous amount of energy for their growth, and it can only come from sunlight. For example a single square kilometer of cropland on Earth is illuminated with about 1000 MW of sunlight at noon; a power load equal to an American city of 1 million people. Put another way, the amount of power required to generate the sunlight falling on the tiny country of El Salvador exceeds the combined capacity of every power plant on Earth. Plants can stand a drop of perhaps a factor of 5 in their light intake compared to terrestrial norms and still grow, but the fact remains; the energetics of plant growth make it inconceivable to raise crops on any kind of meaningful scale with artificially generated light. That said, the problem with using the natural sunlight available on the Moon or in space is that it is unshielded by any atmosphere. (The Moon has an additional problem with its 28 day light/dark cycle, which is also unacceptable to plants). Thus plants grown in a thin walled greenhouse on the surface of the Moon or an asteroid would be killed by solar flares. In order to grow plants safely in such an environment, the walls of the greenhouse would have to be made of glass 10 cm thick, a construction requirement that would make the development of significant agricultural areas prohibitively expensive. Use of reflectors and other light-channeling devices would not solve this problem, as the reflector areas would have to be enormous, essentially equal in area to the crop domains, creating preposterous engineering problems if any significant acreage is to be illuminated.

Mars colonization is key to lunar colonization—the tech solves

Robert Zubrin et al, 1991 Mars Direct: A Simple, Robust, and Cost Effective Architecture for the Space Exploration Initiative, pdf, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF The Mars Direct vehicle systems can also be used to accomplish Lunar missions in the following way. First, an Ares booster launch is used to throw a 59 metric ton payload consisting of a standard hab module plus a cryogenic Lunar orbital capture and lunar descent (LOC/LD) stage onto trans-lunar injection. The LOC/LD stage is then used to land the hab on the Moon. After one or more such habs have been thus enplaced at a given site, the crew is flown out to the Moon within a Mars Direct ERV. The ERV in this case has its (Mars Ascent) first stage deleted, but its second stage is fueled with methane/oxygen bipropellant, and this provides sufficient thrust and delta-V for an Earth return direct from the lunar surface. Landing on the Moon at the prepared site is accomplished with the aid of the same cryogenic LOC/LD module used to land habs and cargo. After landing, the crew exits the ERV and enters the pre-landed hab(s) and proceeds to operate on the Lunar surface for an extended period, after which they re-enter the ERV and execute a direct return to low Earth orbit (LEO). Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 100 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Negative**

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- No Magnetic Field

Mars has no magnetic field, which is key to radiation shielding and atmosphere and water development

Starobin and McClare, 2004 [Project coordinators for researchers and media specialists at NASA, “Sibling Rivalry: A Mars/Earth Comparison.” 4/21/2004, Online, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0422earthmars.html#top] /WFI-MB Mars does not have the same kind of magnetic field as Earth. But evidence collected by the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) indicates that the planet may have once had a global magnetic field, generated by an internal dynamo. Evidence suggests that the planet’s magnetic field reversed direction, or flipped, several times in its early days as conditions in the mantle and core of the planet changed. But that dynamo faded, leaving only faint traces of its magnetic past locked in the Martian crust. Scientists continue to explore these processes on Mars and how they relate to magnetic processes on Earth. And speaking of home, Earth’s magnetic field is powerful: powerful and profoundly important to everyone who lives here. It not only shows evidence of pronounced poles, but also clearly identifiable field lines—magnetic lines of force that define an intangible bubble of electromagnetic energy around the planet. The magnetic signature that defines the field around Earth acts like a protective shield from harmful solar and cosmic radiation. In many ways, the magnetic field is as much a defining characteristic of our planet as any of its other significant attributes. Not only does it protect the Earth from extraterrestrial radiation, but it also may have helped the Earth both hold on to its atmosphere and water. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 101 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mission Fails- Sexual Politics

No Solvency- Sexual politics will doom a mission to Mars

Joseph 10 (Rhawn, PhD, “Sex on Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

NASA has no policy regarding sex in space and its repercussions (Office of Audits, 2010), other than to request, in 2008, that astronauts voluntarily abide by an "Astronaut Code of Professional Responsibility" and maintain "a constant commitment to honourable behaviour." As summed up by the NASA Astronaut Health Care System Review Committee (NASA 2007), "the absence of a code of conduct and its enforcement, and the lack of management action to limit inappropriate activity increases the likelihood of aberrant behaviour occurring and decreases the likelihood of such behaviour being reported." According to NASA's review committee (NASA 2007), and a panel of experts assembled by the National Academy of Science (Longnecker and Molins 2006), this is a serious oversight: if male and female astronauts share a cramped space ship for years, surrounded by stars blazing in the blackness of night, thoughts are bound to turn to sex and romance. Thus, "ignoring the potential consequences of human sexuality is not appropriate when considering extended-duration missions" (Longnecker and Molins 2006), and this includes a human mission to Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 102 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Mutations

No Solvency- gene mutations prevent long term human colonization

Joseph 10 (Rhawn, PhD, “Sex on Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

As a variety of genes will be effected by the environment of Mars, then the genome and the development of a fetus conceived on Mars will be differentially effected as compared to the genome and the development of a fetus on Earth. It must also be recognized that the testes, ovaries, and genome of the parents will have been subjected to markedly adverse environmental conditions as they traversed space to reach Mars (cf Crawford- Young 2006; Ma et al., 2008; Ronca 2003; Straume et al., 2010), and again once on Mars. It is also highly likely subsequent genetic alterations will be passed on to offspring born on Mars (cf NRC 1990, 2006b; Straume et al., 2010). As the environment acts on gene selection in parents and offspring, and as alterations in the environment and the genome effect evolutionary innovation and extinction (Joseph 1993, 2000b; 2009), then not just development but the evolution of humans on Mars will also be differentially effected as compared to humans of Earth. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 103 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Climate Change

Mars is going through a climate change which isn’t going to be good for humans

Black 03 [Richard, Richard Black is the BBC Science correspondent, Humans 'could survive Mars visit,’ Online, 12/9/2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm, WFI-JG] Other Odyssey results released here in San Francisco suggest Mars may be going through a period of climate change. The amount of frozen water near the surface in some relatively warm low-latitude regions on both sides of Mars' equator appears too great to be in equilibrium with the atmosphere under current climatic conditions. Dr William Feldman, of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said: "One explanation could be that Mars is just coming out of an ice age. “In some low-latitude areas, the ice has already dissipated. In others, that process is slower and hasn't reached equilibrium yet. "Those areas are like the patches of snow you sometimes see persisting in protected spots long after the last snowfall of the winter. Odyssey assesses water content indirectly, through measurements of neutron emissions. Frozen water makes up as much as 10% of the top metre of surface material in some regions close to the equator. Dust deposits might be covering and insulating the lingering ice, Dr Feldman said. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 104 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Can’t Reproduce

Mars colonization fails, radiation would sterilize and fetus conceived in space or on the planet

Minkel, 2011 [JR, staff writer for space.com, “Sex and Pregnancy on Mars: A Risky Proposition.” 2/11/2011, Online, http://www.space.com/10822-sex-mars-pregnancy-space-risks.html] /WFI-MB Astronauts sent to colonize Mars would be well advised to avoid getting pregnant en route to the Red Planet, according to a review of radiation hazards by three scientists. High-energy particles bombarding the ship would almost certainly sterilize any female fetus conceived in deep space, making it that much more difficult to establish a successful Mars colony once the crew lands. "The present shielding capabilities would probably preclude having a pregnancy transited to Mars," said radiation biophysicist Tore Straume of NASA Ames Research Center, lead author of the review published in the Journal of Cosmology. Sex in space is a touchy subject for NASA, whose code of conduct for astronauts dictates that "relationships of trust" and "professional standards" are to be maintained at all times. But the logical outgrowth of human space exploration is colonization, write Straume and his co-workers, with Mars being our closest, best bet – and that would entail reproduction. The DNA that guides development of a fertilized embryo and the functioning of all the cells in the body is easily damaged by the kind of radiation that would bombard astronauts on a Mars voyage and ultimately on the planet itself. Radiation spoils space sex

Radiation would make female and children colonists sterile, shields can’t solve

Minkel, 2011 [JR, staff writer for space.com, “Sex and Pregnancy on Mars: A Risky Proposition.” 2/11/2011, Online, http://www.space.com/10822-sex-mars-pregnancy-space-risks.html] /WFI-MB Posing a tougher problem would be radiation streaming in from outside the solar system. So-called galactic cosmic rays consist largely of very high-energy protons, but they also include charged atomic nuclei running up the periodic table all the way to iron, which is quite heavy, atomically speaking. Such charged particles can blow apart biological molecules such as DNA and would easily rip through the aluminum shielding of a spacecraft traveling through interplanetary space. Researchers' understanding of the reproductive hazards of ionizing radiation come primarily from sudden exposures such as radiotherapy for cancer and atomic bomb blasts. However, studies in nonhuman primates have found that even relatively low doses of ionizing radiation are sufficient to kill most of the immature oocytes, or egg cells, in a female fetus during the second half of pregnancy. If those results apply to people as well, then a girl conceived in interplanetary space might well be born sterile because of damage to her eggs. "One would have to be very protective of those cells during gestation, during pregnancy, to make sure that the female didn't become sterile so they could continue the colony," Straume said.

Radiation results in birth defects, damage to sperm and permanent genetic damage

Minkel, 2011 [JR, staff writer for space.com, “Sex and Pregnancy on Mars: A Risky Proposition.” 2/11/2011, Online, http://www.space.com/10822-sex-mars-pregnancy-space-risks.html] /WFI-MB Space pregnancies are risky A child conceived in space would also be likely to suffer from other problems as well. Cells divide and differentiate very rapidly during gestation, and damage to a single cell destined to become the brain or another organ could easily be amplified. Straume said the dose of radiation received by a fetus on a trip to Mars could likely result in severe mental retardation or other deficits. Similar problems could result from damage to sperm, said radiation biologist and geneticist Andrew Wyrobek of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who was not part of the study. Although the effects of chronic space radiation are unclear, low doses of radiation can kill or damage sperm, which might render a man infertile or lead to birth defects. And in rodents, radiation damage can affect offspring born long after the initial exposure to their fathers. "We know that ionizing radiation can induce permanent genetic damage in stem cells" – the cells from which sperm arise, Wyrobek said. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 105 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Too Cold

Mars is too cold for human life

Nasa.gov, 01 Global Warming on Mars, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast09feb_1/ To say that Mars is a chilly place would be an understatement. The Red Planet's mean annual temperature is 55 degrees C below zero -- that's about the same as the temperature of Earth's south pole during winter. If humans ever build communities on Mars, they might want to find a way to turn up the global thermostat. At a recent NASA-sponsored conference, "The Physics and Biology of Making Mars Habitable", scientists discussed ways that future colonists might make the frigid planet a little more comfortable.

Mars would be too cold for humans; to heat up would destroy another planet just like we did to Earth

Phillips 1 [Tony, Dr. Tony Phillips is the production editor of Science@NASA, which means that he writes, proofs, edits, formats, and does whatever is necessary to keep the stories rolling, 2/9/2001, Online, “Global warming on Mars,” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast09feb_1/ WFI-JG] To say that Mars is a chilly place would be an understatement. The Red Planet's mean annual temperature is 55 degrees C below zero -- that's about the same as the temperature of Earth's south pole during winter. If humans ever build communities on Mars, they might want to find a way to turn up the global thermostat. At a recent NASA-sponsored conference, "The Physics and Biology of Making Mars Habitable", scientists discussed ways that future colonists might make the frigid planet a little more comfortable. One solution might be to pump enough greenhouse gases into the Martian atmosphere to create a runaway greenhouse effect. Here on Earth, the idea of a runaway greenhouse sets off alarm bells. But on Mars it could be a plus. Scientists at the conference speculated how it might be possible to warm Mars just enough to evaporate the planet's available carbon dioxide (CO2 trapped in ices and frost) into the atmosphere, where such gases could contribute to keeping the planet warm. But there are two problems. First, even if all of Mars's available CO2 were coaxed into the atmosphere, it wouldn't necessarily warm the planet enough to make it a comfortable place for humans, because no one knows just how much CO2 is there. Second, the best way to get Mars to release its CO2 spontaneously is, well... to warm it up. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 106 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Radiation

Colonizing would cause too much of a risk due to radiation

Black 03 [Richard, Richard Black is the BBC Science correspondent, Humans 'could survive Mars visit,’ Online, 12/9/2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3302375.stm, WFI-JG] On Earth, we are protected from the worst cosmic radiation. The Earth's magnetic field acts like a shield, diverting radiation away. But for astronauts on the Martian surface - or travelling between Earth and Mars - there is no such protection. NASA scientists have been measuring radiation around Mars with an instrument on board the Mars Odyssey orbiting probe. According to Cary Zeitlin, from the National Space Biomedical Research Institute, it has found that astronauts on the Red Planet would be exposed to roughly double the radiation dose they currently experience on the International Space Station. "The dose [an] astronaut would receive on a Mars mission is large enough to be beyond what they've experienced in Earth orbit," he told BBC News Online. "Therefore it opens some questions about the biological effects of this radiation that we haven't really fully addressed yet." "A Mars mission would last around three years. And it's the duration of the exposure that becomes the issue; it's also the fact that the radiation i s quite exotic. "It's galactic cosmic radiation. It comes from all over the galaxy. W e call it heavy ion radiation." This radiation could perhaps lead to more cancers, more catar acts and nervous system damage. But overall, Dr Zeitlin says, it is manageable - humans could go on Mars missions relatively safely. They would need to use the planet itself to shield them, building their shelters in hollows, and perhaps taking materials which would reduce radiation further. What is somewhat ironic about this is that the Odyssey instrument, named Marie, has itself been damaged, apparently beyond repair, by ex cessive radiation from the Sun. It stopped functioning following a massive solar flare in October. But NASA says it sent back enough data before its demise to reassure us about the feasibility of human missions to Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 107 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Solar Wind

We’ll be blown away by solar wind on Mars

Phillips 1 [Tony, Dr. Tony Phillips is the production editor of Science@NASA, which means that he writes, proofs, edits, formats, and does whatever is necessary to keep the stories rolling, 2/9/2001, Online, “Solar wind at Mars,” http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast09feb_1/ WFI-JG] If it were possible to magically transport a cup of water from Earth to the surface of Mars, the liquid would instantly vaporize. Mars's atmosphere is so vacuous (it's less than 1% as dense as Earth's) that liquid water simply can't exist for very long on the Red Planet. That's a puzzle to planetary scientists, because Mars's surface is littered with signs of liquid water. Dried up valley networks, sedimentary deposits, and chaotic flood plains hint that billions of years ago Martian water flowed freely and that the atmosphere there must have been substantially thicker than it is now. But where did it all that Martian air go? New evidence from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) spacecraft supports a long-held suspicion that much of the Red Planet's atmosphere was simply blown away -- by the solar wind. Earth is shielded from the solar wind by a magnetic bubble extending 50,000 km into space -- our planet's magnetosphere. Without a substantial magnetosphere to protect it, much of Mars's atmosphere is exposed directly to fast-moving particles from the Sun. The solar wind is a fast-moving part of the Sun's outer atmosphere. The solar corona, with a temperature greater than one million degrees C, is so hot that the Sun's gravity can't hold it down. It flows away in all directions traveling 400 to 800 km/s. Every planet in the solar system is immersed in this gusty breeze of charged particles. Here on Earth we're protected from the solar wind by a global magnetic field (the same one that causes compass needles to point north). Our planet's magnetosphere, which extends far out into space, deflects solar wind ions before they penetrate to the atmosphere below. Mars isn't so fortunate. Lacking a planet-wide magnetic field, most of the Red Planet is exposed to the full force of the incoming solar wind. "The Martian atmosphere extends hundreds of kilometers above the surface where it's ionized by solar ultraviolet radiation," says Dave Mitchell, a space scientist at the University of California at Berkeley. "The magnetized solar wind simply picks up these ions and sweeps them away." "In 1989 the Soviet Phobos probe made direct measurements of the atmospheric erosion," he continued. When the spacecraft passed through the solar wind wake behind Mars, onboard instruments detected ions that had been stripped from Mars's atmosphere and were flowing downstream with the solar wind. "If we extrapolate those Phobos measurements 4 billion years backwards in time, solar wind erosion can account for most of the planet's lost atmosphere." "To calculate the total loss of atmosphere," he added, "we must take into account how the Sun has changed during the past four billion years. The Sun's ultraviolet output was larger in the past, and the solar wind was probably much stronger. This means that solar wind erosion was likely much more effective i n the past than it is today." Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 108 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Tech

Colonization fails—not technologically feasible

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB Travel time is not our only problem though. Imagine the supplies needed and the problem of maintaining an appropriate sustainable environment for the crew for a 42 year one way trip. And then there’s the issue of keeping the ship operational for such a long period. Think of the energy requirements that would be needed to sustain such a trip just to keep the ships systems working let alone the energy requirements for the ship’s propulsion systems. For all these reasons plus several others we have not bothered to mention, many “experts” conclude that we are a very long way away from the practicality of embarking on such a trip. According to them our only hope of interstellar contact would be to stay at home and try to communicate with an alien civilization via some form of communication mechanism such as powerful narrow band radio or laser beams. And, even then the round trip delay of such a message to our closest neighbor would take about 9 years. Certainly this does not seem like an encouraging prospect for two-way interstellar communications. A monologue perhaps.

No Solvency- No ship that can take us to Mars

Lunau 10 (Kate, “Destination Mars”, Macleans, September 27)

A robotic surgeon would certainly be an asset on a mission to Mars, but we still don't have a ship that can take us there. With current technology, a trip would require a heavy-lift rocket (one that could blast at least 70 metric tonnes off Earth's surface) and several launches to get all the necessary equipment off the ground. The giant ship would then be assembled in orbit before blasting off to Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 109 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- Tech

Mars colonization is technological infeasible and very dangerous

Bell, 2005 [Jeffrey F former space scientist and Adjunct Professor for Planetary Science at the Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics & Planetology at the University of Hawaii, 2005 , “The Dream Palace of the Space Cadets,” Nov.25, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zzb.html wfi-kc] Actually, I wasn't laughing then. I never laugh while reading foolish online discussions about space. My reaction is intense frustration. It is frustrating to find that many Space Cadets are shockingly ignorant about space technology - and even more frustrating that the average level of ignorance seems to get worse with every passing year. On the face of it this makes no sense. The first thing you do when you become obsessed with something is study it obsessively, right? And 21st century Space Cadets don't have to plow through yellowing books in college engineering libraries like I did in the 1970s - today the basic facts are there at web sites run by people like Mark Wade and Marcus Lindroos who make extraordinary efforts to dig out obscure information. But for years now, I have been meeting people who are both wildly enthusiastic about space travel as a broad intellectual concept and completely ignorant of the practical details. They don't know how rocket engines work. They don't know the basics of orbital mechanics. They don't know the facts (or the uncertainties) about the dangers of radiation and microgravity. Even worse, they have no idea how much space travel costs, or how these costs compare to other areas of human activity like war or mountain-climbing. They think that Will is all you need to colonize the solar system- they have no concept of the political, financial, and technological investment that it would take. But the small fraction of the pro-space community I meet in person seems tame compared to the internet space chat community. One regularly finds long discussion threads on politically impossible ideas like a one-way Mars suicide mission, financially impossible ideas like building spaceships on the Moon, and technically impossible ideas like ion-powered space blimps. In all these discussions, the few informed people who try to point out the massive problems with these ideas are swamped by a much larger number of enthusiasts who clearly don't know enough basic science or engineering to even understand the issues. I get even more frustrated when I visit the web sites of the various space advocacy groups. They are a pale shadow of the L-5 Society and the Space Studies Institute (both of which I joined in the 1970s). Many of these organizations seem to live in a dream palace of their own creation that has no relationship to the real world at all. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 110 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Colonization Fails- NASA Inefficient

No solvency- NASA is too disorganized to get to Mars

Albrecth 7/7 (Mark J., Chairman of US Space, “America’s space program is crashing;” The Washington Times, Lexis Nexis, 2011

For NASA, Mr. Bush requested a one-time 25 percent increase in spending and a plan for 10 percent annual increases for five years thereafter. On July 20, 1989, the 20th anniversary of the landing of Apollo XI on the moon, he stood on the steps of the National Air and Space Museum and called for a new round of exploration, back to the moon, this time to stay, and then a journey to tomorrow, a human mission to Mars. His justification was simple: It is Americans' destiny to explore and to lead. Mr. Bush's program plan was steady and even, with heavy emphasis on new technology development and new ways of doing business. His vision was clear: We would continue our exploration of space not in competition, but in cooperation with the nations of the world, even our recent enemy, Russia. None of those plans came to fruition. The reasons are clear. Our institutions are bloated, wasteful and bureaucratic. Elected representatives act as fiscal stewards of jobs in their states and districts, making efficient and coherent allocation of resources nearly impossible. Private industry wields its consolidated power to smother competition, grow cost and mimic its slow and bureaucratic customer. And the academic community, for its part, deftly uses its power to influence, adjudicate and validate government science initiatives to ensure that it gets its "fair share" of the exploration pie. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 111 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Mission Fails- Cost

The last trip to mars, the Viking, failed and wasted billions of dollars

Miller ‘5 [ryder, editor and writer for the green journal, Millennial Fever, Extremophiles, NASA, Astroenvironmentalism, and Planetary Protection, 2005, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2k07d6f1 wfi-kc] NASA was home to some of the best scientists and engineers in the world, women and men who more than anything wanted to pioneer the frontiers of space. And they were capable of doing it, but they were afraid to. For years, NASA had been building huge spacecraft that cost billions of dollars. NASA was trying to build more Vikings, even though the times and technology changed and wouldn’t allow it. These temples to engineering took so long to build and cost so much, they literally paralyzed the agency, especially when they failed. Fear of failure equals paralysis: A thermovacuum test became a political event before the U.S. Congress.

Mars isn’t worth colonizing due to harms

Cessna 10 [Abby, Abby Cessna is a contributor to Universe Today a website dedicated to space and astronomy news, Mars Colonization, 4/22/2010, http://www.universetoday.com/59031/mars-colonization/ WFI-JG] There are still many differences though. For instance, the gravity on Mars is only about 40% of the Earth’s gravity. Additionally about 95% of the planet’s atmosphere is carbon dioxide, the atmosphere cannot protect from people on the planet from harmful radiation, and the temperatures reach -63°C. Even with its problems, Mars is considered the easiest planet to make habitable. The main two things people would need are breathable air and water. Numerous locations on the planet could be considered for colonization. Although scientists have discovered large amounts of water at the poles, they think that water can also be found at other locations on the planet. Thus, the poles are not considered the best spot for a colony, especially since they experience periods of constant light and darkness like the Earth’s poles do. If Mars was going to be turned into a colony, the planet would need to be terraformed. Another concern regarding building a colony is the cost. Not only would materials have to be transported to the planet, but the planet would also need to be made habitable. As an alternative to spacecraft, a space elevator between Earth and Mars has been proposed. There is a good deal of debate regarding what could be produced from a Mars colony. The colony may be able to produce some of the local resources it needs to survive, although the infrastructure would likely take a while to build. Despite the difficulties, some scientists feel that it is only a matter of time until Mars is colonized. There are a number of groups dedicated to advocating the colonization of Mars, such as the Mars Society. If a colony on Mars is in the future, then it is still quite a ways away. NASA has not actually had a manned flight to the planet yet, although there are tentative plans for such missions in the future. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 112 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Empirically

No Solvency-Past missions to Mars prove failure is inevitable

Robinson 10 (Michael, University of Hartford, “The Problem of the Human Mission to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

Despite this apparent compatibility of visions of Mars, plans to sent astronauts to Mars have repeatedly failed. The Constellation Program is only the most recent Mars project to come up short. Wernher von Braun championed the idea of human Mars expeditions in the 1950s, followed by the Project EMPIRE study of the 1960s, the Space Task Group plan of the1970s, the Space Exploration Initiative in the 1990s, and the Vision for Space Exploration in 2000s. For those looking to place boots on Mars, NASA seems to be drifting in a Sargasso Sea of underfunded programs and policy revisions, never able to chart its course for the New World.(von Braun 1952, NASA 1989)

No solvency- predictions of colonizing mars have failed in the past

Daily Telegraph 7/12 (“Our eyes are still on the final frontier” Lexis Nexis, 2011)

As for where Nasa goes next, the president has given only a vague outline, in the form of missions to an asteroid and Mars. From the perspective of any space cadet from 1969, this isn't very impressive. Moments before Armstrong's Apollo 11 booster lifted off from Cape Kennedy, vicepresident Spiro Agnew declared that the next goal should be a manned landing on Mars by the end of the century. A presidential committee on post-Apollo objectives - which Agnew happened to head - predicted that America could send astronauts to Mars by the mid-Eighties for not much more than the $24 billion cost of Apollo. No wonder Armstrong has criticised Obama's plans. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 113 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Bad- Fails as Colony

Mars shouldn’t be the place where we colonize—it’s horrifying

Tyson 10 [Peter Tyson editor-in-chief NOVA online, “A one-way trip to Mars, 11-04-2010, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/human-mars-mission.html WFI-JG] All the glorifying aside, what would settling on Mars actually be like for those who did it? I turned to a man who knows as much as anyone can about that subject—Steve Squyres, the Cornell planetary scientist in charge of the Mars rovers, which have now spent over six years exploring the surface. "I think what people are not keeping in mind is what a truly horrible place Mars is," Squyres told me. "And you're hearing this from a guy who loves Mars and has devoted his career to trying to explore the place. It's horrifyingly cold. It's dusty. It's bleak. It's barren. It's desolate. And it's incredibly far from home." In short, he takes "a very skeptical view of the whole Mars colonization thing." One-way may even be more difficult and more expensive than two, Squyres says. "If you're talking about colonization in the sense that we're establishing a true permanent outpost of civilization on another world, that's a lot harder than a round trip," he says. "The amount of infrastructure, the amount of support that you have to put in place on the surface to sustain people indefinitely, I think may be prohibitively expensive." Altogether, he feels a one-way mission is "totally unrealistic." Squyres is not against humans going to Mars, nor does he think robots can do as good a job. On the contrary. "The science you can do with robots pales in comparison to what human explorers can do," he says. "I mean, what Spirit and Opportunity have done in six and a half years on Mars, you and I could have done in a good week or 10 days. But you don't need to make them live the rest of their lives and raise their children there in order for them to do the science." For his part, Squyres suspects that eventually we may do with Mars what we've done with Antarctica—establish permanent bases where scientists can go and do research, then rotate out and come home. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 114 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Infighting

No Solvency- Infighting guarantees the mission to Mars is doomed

Robinson 10 (Michael, University of Hartford, “The Problem of the Human Mission to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

What explains the failure of human Mars programs? There are many answers. The lack of sustained commitment in the executive branch, the fickle nature of Congress, and the capricious interest of the public are routinely cited as causes. Yet this blame is misplaced. Lukewarm support for human spaceflight has been the rule rather than the exception over the past fifty years. As such, it should not be seen as the cause, but as the climate in which Mars programs must adapt to operate (Launius 2010). Instead, the key problem exists within the space community itself: a basic disagreement over the meaning and purpose of Mars exploration. While the compatibility of different visions of Mars – as a place of science and human exploration – is real, it is paper-thin. Consensus over aims is easy to attain when the basket of goals is broad; science, national prestige, and human progress are all popular motives for exploring Mars. Yet these goals routinely come into conflict. Expensive missions and tight federal budgets force choices over the goals of Mars exploration. While most members of the space community would embrace the set of goals as a whole, they tend to be committed to one goal far more strongly than the others. For example, many space scientists express frustration with human space flight, which they view as an expensive distraction from scientific exploration (Launius 2006, Lester 2010) Lower costs, improvements in computer design and miniaturization, and the proven durability of Martian probes have encouraged their faith in robotic science and made arguments for sending astronauts to Mars less compelling (American Physical Society 2004). By contrast, many supporters of human missions to Mars believe that the focus on science and robotic exploration has become too narrow, ignoring the deeper meanings of exploration, its capacity to inspire people today, and shape the societies of tomorrow.

No Solvency- Infighting about locations will doom a trip to Mars

NPR 10 (October 1, “What are the challenges of ‘trailblazing Mars’?”, Talk of the Nation, Lexis Nexis, October 1)

And if you do send people to Mars, are you going to want some place that's very friendly, very habitable, or are you going to go to the areas that are of more interest? I mean, I spoke to some scientists who say, hey, wouldn't it be cool that we build a ship that flew into Valles Marineris, which is a canyon, you know, that's like five miles deep and can stretch from New York to Los Angeles. Fly into it, get out and look up as opposed to you landing on the side and just, you know, walking out and looking down, so there are all kinds of really interesting places on Mars. But there's going to be a pitch battle between NASA and the scientific community on what's scientifically interesting as opposed to what's more practical to keep the astronauts alive. That's definitely coming, assuming we ever undertake this kind of flight. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 115 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Diseases

Colonization risks infection to crew and Earth

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB A human mission to Mars is one of the most important steps in the exploration of the Solar System in the decades to come (Mitchell and Staretz 2010; Zubrin 2010). While the benefits of a human mission to Mars are obvious from a scientific to technological point, one has to insure that such a mission is undertaken with the appropriate safety measures (Straume et al., 2010; Stuster 2010). If the history of space exploration can be used as a lesson, the highest risk for such a mission will be catastrophic vehicle failure. However, visiting an alien planet will also come with a certain degree of biological risk, in terms of infection or contamination of either the astronauts, the technical crew on the ground, or even Earth ecosystems upon return of the mission. In this article we will review the current knowledge concerning the biohazard of potential Martian microbes.

Risk is high—bacteria and viruses are the most likely forms of life on the planet

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB Viruses are obligate intracellular organisms, needing a host to replicate and transmit genetic information, which make them additionally vulnerable to extreme environments. However, the example of bacteriophage viruses of extremophile bacteria provides the example of virus presence in extreme environments (Prigent, et al., 2005; Sawstrom, et al., 2008). Thus the possibility of Martian viruses (in case of the presence of bacteria) cannot be completely ruled out. Therefore, the most likely life form on Mars would be bacterial life. Bacteria are not only the most resilient and adaptable of known life forms but they are also the only class of organisms that can survive "stand alone" and do not rely on other life forms. In addition, the microfossils present in the ALH84001 meteorite are most plausible bacterial (nanobacteria), if they are indeed of biologic origin (McKay, et al., 1996). Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 116 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Diseases

Mars pathogens produce toxins that are fatal to colonists

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB However, a pathogenic potential of Martian microbes cannot be excluded either. Even if they were not capable of directly invading the host and causing infection, Martian microbes could still have pathogenic potential by secreting toxins that could indirectly harm the astronauts (e.g. through wounds, contaminated food). Examples of powerful microbial toxins secreted by terrestrial bacteria indeed abound, e.g. clostridial toxins (Lebrun, et al., 2009). Still, one has to recognize that the majority of such toxins of terrestrial bacteria are proteins, which in turn are recognized by specific cellular receptors, again requiring a history of previous interaction between the pathogenic agent and the host. Would such putative toxins of Martian microbes also be proteins, would they have similar biochemistry, would they even be made of the same aminoacids? Although it is possible that through mechanisms know as panspermia (Joseph and Schild 2010a,b) that microbes from Earth could be transported to Mars (and vice versa) thereby providing opportunities for horizontal gene transfer and thus giving Martian microbes human-infective properties (Joseph and Wickramasinghe 2010), at present there is no hard evidence to substantiate these theories. Thus, these are all questions that cannot be answered at present. Still, how minimal the chance that there may be pathogenic microorganisms on Mars, one cannot completely rule it out (Rummel et al. 2010). Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 117 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Mars Fails- Back Contamination

Pathogens produce back-contamination that destroy earths ecosystems

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB A different aspect of the biohazard potential of Martian microbes is the capacity of such microorganisms to disrupt Earth ecosystems, should contaminated material from a Mars mission reach the environment upon return (Rummel et al. 2010). This risk is most likely also small, as environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity, chemistry, atmospheric pressure, and nutrients fundamentally differ between Earth and Mars. From an evolutionary point of view, it is highly unlikely that a Martian microbe that in Earth terms would be characterized as an extremophile would be able to compete successfully with terrestrial microorganisms, which are optimally adapted to the environment through millions years of evolution. However, long-term subtle influences on terrestrial ecosystems might be induced by introduction of Martian microorganisms and thereby represent a potential hazard. As a conclusion, the National Research Council Space Studies Board who assessed the biohazard posed by Martian microorganisms considered the risk of "back-contamination" as small, but not inexistent, and recommended that spacecraft and samples returning from Mars to be treated as potentially hazardous (National Research Council Space Studies Board, 1997; see also Rummel et al. 2010).

The mars mission could conduct havoc on humanity

Miller ‘5 [ryder, editor and writer for the green journal, Millennial Fever, Extremophiles, NASA, Astroenvironmentalism, and Planetary Protection, 2005, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/2k07d6f1 wfi-kc] Thinking about astronomical developments at the turn of the century, it was difficult to separate what “could be” from what “may be.” Decisions about space exploration were being made that could drastically affect the future of humanity. Almost as if stepping out of a science fiction book, NASA has a Planetary Protection Officer who focuses on forward and backward contamination resulting from space exploration. The fear of backward contamination from possible life found on Mars creating havoc here on Earth is one of the reasons that a Mars sample return missions has not yet been planned. There are also those who presently fear that space will become a new battleground, especially due to the use of nuclear powered vehicles in the near Earth orbit. But of more concern here is the not widely known NASA Stardust Mission that will bring back samples from the tail of the Wild-2 comet for examination in 2006. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 118 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Solvency 1NC- Humans Contaminate Mars

Explorers contaminate Mars—dangerous for future missions

Netea et al, 2010 [Mihai, Dept of Medicine and Institute for Infection @ Univ of Nimegen Medical Center Netherlands, Frank L. van de Veerdonk, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Marc Strous, Max Plank institute for Marine microbiology, and Jos van der Meer, Dept of Medicine and Institute for infection, Infection risk of Human mission to Mars.” Journal of Cosmology 2010, vol 12, Oct-Nov, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars129.html] /WFI-MB The reverse should also be considered, i.e., the potential contamination of Mars with Earth microorganisms. Although it is not likely that hitchhiking microbes can survive on the harsh surface of Mars, - likewise they should behave as extremophiles - it could be that during drilling missions in the search for water or during accidents such as a vehicle crash during landing, terrestrial microbes gain access to spots where they could potentially survive and multiply. Although this will not immediately result in a risk for human explorers, time and adaptation may result in a biohazard during returning missions to Mars. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 119 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Adv 1NC- A2 Overview Effect

The long trip to Mars will negate any overview effect

Lunau 10 (Kate, “Destination Mars”, Macleans, September 27)

When Thirsk was on the ISS, he spent long moments gazing down at Earth. "I was amazed by its beauty," he says. "The oceans are blue, but they're 100 shades of blue. You see incredible patterns in the desert: 100 shades of brown, gold and red. It's so heartwarming to see such a beautiful planet, and all the signs of life down there." This is common among astronauts, who tend to say that seeing Earth is the greatest benefit of their time in space, says Dr. Nick Kanas, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco and an expert in astronaut psychology. It can be calming and restorative, he says, imparting "a sense of history, of a lack of boundaries, and of the beauty of Earth as a homeland." Astronauts going to Mars won't have that benefit. They'll be the first humans to see their home planet fade away, until it disappears into the blackness of space. (As they zoom toward Mars through permanent sunlight, they won't even see any stars, Roach reports, just black.) "Nobody in the history of our existence has ever perceived Earth as an insignificant dot. We've either seen it as a beautiful ball, or we're standing on it," Kanas says. Nobody knows what the impact of "Earth out-of-view phenomenon" will be. "It might be nothing," he says, "but it might be profound." Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 120 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Adv 1NC- Tech Solves

Tech and advancement solve all human problems—no need for the aff

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB It is highly likely that our not too distant progeny have an understanding of laws of nature that will be far beyond what we in the 21st century understand. Consider the current rate of growth of knowledge which has been following an exponential growth curve; thus doubling the rate of new knowledge acquisition every two years. Think about the fact that our science is on the verge of being able to genetically engineer the human genome. Based at the current rate of progress in molecular and cellular biology and genetics, it is not very difficult to extrapolate that within a mere few hundred or so years we will have the ability to engineer ourselves with capabilities beyond our wildest dreams of today. By then we will probably have conquered all genetic diseases and will have deliberately endowed ourselves with an immune system that can survive any known viral or bacterial infections. Perhaps, barring accidents, we will also be able to live indefinitely. Certainly our planet, our social systems and our cultural systems will not be able to deal with a human population with such extreme longevity.

**Moon Colonization CP**

1nc Solvency

Colonization of the moon superior to mars colonization—cheaper, safer, and generates faster returns

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB The Moon has many relative advantages. The first is capital utilization. A Lunar cycler can make hundreds of round trips in the time that a Mars cycler can make. Second, there is much less fuel required to get from the Earth to the Moon than to Mars. Existing technology can be used to get to the Moon (see “Soyuz to the Moon?”, The Space Review, August 2, 2004). A lunar landing mission might cost $120 million for an Ariane 5 booster. If each mission cost another $120 million for the Soyuz, service module and everything else, then that would be $240 million per flight instead of $5 billion per flight. That means that a $50-billion level of commitment from Earth can afford over 400 flights every two years. Of course, that level of commitment could be optimally spent in much better ways. By creating a lunar cycler, a station at L-1, an orbital fuel depot, in situ utilization of lunar oxygen and possibly lunar water, there could be a vibrant community on the Moon. While a single Ariane 5 could not heft as much as a Mars Direct flight, it may still transfer a comparable amount of resources and people as a Mars Direct flight would to Mars. Since life support and consumables are much less onerous for a short trip than a long trip, there is a lower mass requirement for crew transfer flights to the Moon and much less depreciation of capital in transit. Having new heavy lift that would enable Mars Direct would also enable more sensible lunar colonization missions. There are many supporting reasons to go to the Moon. Consider three categories of justification: engineering, economics, and politics.

Moon colonization is a critical stepping stone to Mars colonzation

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB Our first manned mission to Mars will not be too different from the first moon exploration, simply short term and exploratory. The long distance and long travel time to Mars of 9 months or more one way (with existing technologies) require special consideration which is the subject of a separate paper. Plans to originate Mars colonization from moon colonies established for deep space exploration have been proposed. It is argued that the moon’s lower mass and therefore much lower gravity, 1/6 of Earth’s, translates to greatly reduced costs of launching missions into deep space. Many of the raw materials and resources required to sustain the crew on our early interplanetary missions might possibly be mined from the moon greatly reducing the costs. Newly discovered water if available in sufficient quantity might be mined for human use, and its constituents, oxygen for human consumption along with hydrogen for fuel. Carbon, iron and several other elements will also likely be mined for a variety of purposes. Together they will make up a significant portion of the total resources required for our first interplanetary colonists. Establishing a fully self sufficient colony on the moon as a stepping stone to the planets will not come cheaply and may prove not to be feasible at all. However, the moon will be a great laboratory and learning environment for the kinds of obstacles, living conditions, and hazards that will also have to be faced on Mars or more distant venues. In some cases the hazards on the moon are even more severe than the Martian environment. For example solar radiation, solar wind, micrometeorites, and 500 degree temperature gradients are far more indicative of what our space explorers will experience during the trip to Mars than the extremes that will be encountered on the Martian surface. The knowledge gained and the technologies developed to support permanent bases on the moon will greatly benefit both for our first voyages to Mars as well as the first Martian colonies and even worlds beyond. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 122 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

2nc Solvency Extensions

Colonization of the moon solves a laundry list of problems that could destroy us all and is key to further space colonization

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB The Moon may become a very exciting destination with a substantial GDP. Being there first means that the high ground is already occupied for any future militarization of the Moon. It’s possible that colonizing the Moon will help muster the political will to colonize Mars. Earthers will be able to see the colony directly with their own eyes. A convincing existence proof will be there for everyone to see that colonization is feasible and profitable. A lunar colony is a politically feasible off-Earth gene bank increasing the chances that the species will be immortal. The act of leaving the cradle may be the other addition to our chances for immortality. It will be harder to monopolize communication between the Earth and Moon than Earth and Mars. This will create a free flow of ideas that will benefit both societies. There will be a greater spirit of freedom sooner with lunar colonization due to speedier development, and the faster mixing of ideas. Colonizing the Moon will also be a faster spur to legal development. The development of space law, especially property rights, mineral rights, and to a lesser extent labor law and human rights will create additional liquidity for other space colonization activities. Having independent space nations will enrich the solar system polity and make the solar system and the species more secure from natural disaster. We can speed interstellar exploration and colonization. Ultimately we may create two new worlds that are every bit as rich, varied and interesting as our own. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 123 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

2nc Solvency Extensions

Moon colonization avoids shuttle failure and is safer to establish

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB First, on a mission to the Moon, Earth rescue is a decent possibility for certain kinds of failures. On a trip to Mars, this would be out of the question. As NASA is finding out with its shuttle return to flight efforts, having a standby rescue ship and a space station to go to makes failure recovery for many failures feasible without too much increased capability from our existing hardware. Second, the proximity to Earth allows for just-in-time planning. With Earth only a few days away, a regular resupply mission can have last minute changes to its manifest. That means that fewer spares need to be kept on hand to assure the same level of safety as in a Mars mission. Third, the short distance between the Earth and the Moon allow Earth based teleoperation to be a viable alternative to robotics and local human operation. This vastly leverages the capability of capital equipment on the Moon. Fourth, there is valuable information that can be learned in setting up a space colony that will raise the likelihood of success of all future colonization efforts. So if we are colonizing both Mars and the Moon, colonizing the Moon first would help inform the colonization plan of Mars. The reverse would not be as true because Mars colonization would take longer. Finally, resource and energy options are opened up to guard against our energy appetite increasing (as our nuclear appetite isn’t) or carbon appetite decreasing. In addition to lunar resource utilization, creating an option to colonize near Earth asteroids is very interesting and makes many resource extraction strategies feasible even if it would take technology breakthroughs or huge changes in the economy to make them financially viable.

Moon colonization solves- multiple reasons

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB The Moon is a very interesting destination in its own right. Being closer to the Earth creates engineering, economic, and political opportunities. The Moon may make a Mars colony feasible or desirable, thus enabling three branches of humanity. A lunar colony can use much more mass imported from Earth and more flexible and capable engineering. Tourism may independently justify lunar colonization, but science, technology, skills and entertainment make the case stronger. Having a new place to live with new laws, customs, and ideas may ultimately be the most valuable contribution of all.

Moon solves—great jumping off point for exploration of the solar system

Jaggard, 2010 [Victoria, contributor for national geographic, “Carl Sagan helps make the case for mars.” 6-29-2010, Online, http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/06/29/carl_sagan_case_for_mars/] /WFI-MB Proponents say the moon is a vital stepping stone for establishing humans in space–it’s relatively close, it’s got water (and lots of it) , and we have a proven track record with successful lunar landings. Build a moon base, prove we can scale up, then use the moon as a jumping-off point for trips deeper into the solar system. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 124 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

2nc CP Solves Econ D/A

Moon exploration k2 economic growth and investment, faster returns that Mars colonization

Dinkin, 2004 [Sam, colunist for The Space Review Online, “Colonis the Moon Before Mars.” Online, 9/7/2004, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1] /WFI-MB Space skills will be valuable and firms and people with experience on the Moon will be well able to help develop cislunar and martian systems. Radiation management experience, artificial gravity creation technology, operation and maintenance, flywheel, maglev, and mass driver technologies are all likely to be developed on the Moon and useful in future efforts. Labor-saving technologies are likely to give a boost to the terrestrial economy. The fine details of how this will affect us is hard to predict, but if the cost of labor on the Moon is high because of the high cost of transportation, new and varied uses of teleoperation and robotics will become cost effective. Some of those technologies will have immediate application on Earth. The less scripted and higher intensity nature of lunar development will allow these to emerge more quickly from lunar than martian colonization. To sum up, the lunar economy can pay for all its imports through the tourism industry, intellectual property exports, science, entertainment, space skills, low-g skills and labor saving technology. There could be a huge wave of private investment that is coincident with government colonization efforts. That could result in a co-development of many industries such as terrestrial point-to-point rocket service, orbital tourism, teleoperation, and robotics. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 125 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Privatization CP Solvency**

Privatization CP-Mars

No way the USFG ever pays for the colonization of market- corporations are key to solve

A succession of Presidents and NASA administrators have voiced interest in a human mission to Mars. However, they have also proposed vague, fanciful dates so many decades into the future. Even if a serious 20- year or 30-year plan were to emerge, it would have to survive for decades through multiple NASA and U.S. government administrations to ultimately succeed. Success is not just unlikely, but will be too late, as the ESA, China, Russia, Japan, and other nations are already planning on making it to Mars in the next two decades. The United States of America, the American people, and American business will be the big losers. The Human Mission to Mars must commence now, and it must be an international effort. The conquest of Mars and the establishment of a colony on the surface of the Red Planet could cost 150 billion dollars over 10 years. These funds can be easily raised if the U.S. Congress and other participating nations, grants and enacts legislation to give sole marketing, licensing, and fund-raising authority to an independent corporation (such as the hypothetical Human Mission to Mars Corporation) which initiates and supervises the marketing, merchandizing, sponsorship, broadcasting, and licensing initiatives detailed in this article. The United States Congress and all participating nations must also enact legislation and pass laws to protect these fund-raising efforts and those who sponsor, donate to, and partner with THMMC to make a Human Mission to Mars a reality.

NASA and the USFG fail- only private marketers can generate the funds to colonize Mars

The sole mission of The Human Mission to Mars Corporation should be to raise $150 billion to fund a Human Mission to Mars and the colonization of the Red Planet, and this can be accomplished by initiating and following the detailed plans discussed in this article. It is estimated that $10 billion a year can be raised through clever advertising and marketing and the sale of merchandise. Following a massive advertising campaign which increases public interest, between $30 billion to $90 billion can be raised through corporate sponsorships, and an additional $1 billion a year through individual sponsorships. The sale of naming rights would yield an estimated $30 billion. Television broadcasting rights would bring in an estimated $30 billion. This comes to a total of between $100 billion to $160 billion, and does not include other commercial ventures and the sale of real estate and mineral rights. NASA can't do it. The United States government can't do it. An International effort can. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 126 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Privatization CP-Mars Cont.

Solvency-Privatization is the only way humanity is ever getting to Mars

Carberry, Westenberg and Ortner 10 (CA, Artemis, and Blake, Executive Director, President of Explore Mars Inc, Project Leader ISRU Challenge, “The Mars Prize and the Private Missions to Mars”, Journal of Cosmology, August)

Regardless of whether Space X is "officially" running a private humans to Mars program, if they continue to successfully launch their Falcon 9 rocket and demonstrate that they will be able to safely launch humans into orbit at dramatically reduced cost, this could significantly advance the possibility of a Virgle-like consortium. When asked if such a consortium may be possible in the next one to two decades, Director of Google Space Initiatives Tiffany Montague said, "…there is no reason to assume that it couldn't be a reality. I think each company has to make wise decisions on what the investments are for short and long term, and I can't really speculate on what companies might end up joining the consortium, but I don't think it is improbable that the solution to long-term space exploration should come from the commercial sector" (Montague 2010). Despite his doubts concerning a mega Mars X-Prize, Peter Diamandis is a strong advocate of a private mission to Mars. "I think privately funded missions are the only way to go to Mars with humans because I think the best way to go is on "one- way" colonization flights and no government will likely sanction such a risk. The timing for this could well be within the next 20 years. It will fall within the hands of a small group of tech billionaires who view such missions as the way to leave their mark on humanity" (Diamandis 2010).

Private action necessary to solve

Many in the scientific and corporate community believe a Human Mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent Mars' base, will be feasible only if led by a public enterprise independent of the U.S. government. As detailed in this proposal, the $150 billion can be raised by "The Human Mission to Mars Corporation," (a hypothetical entity) if given an exclusive mandate and exclusive licensing rights by the U.S. Congress and other participating nations. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 127 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Privatization CP-Mars Cont.

Solvency- Private companies can beat NASA’s timeframe for putting humans on Mars

Don't expect to hear any nostalgia about the soon-to-end space shuttle era from Elon Musk, the millionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies. Musk isn't prone to look to the past, but rather to the future — to a "new era of spaceflight" that eventually leads to Mars. SpaceX may be on the Red Planet sooner than you think: When I talked with him in advance of the shuttle Atlantis' last liftoff, the 40-year-old engineer-entrepreneur told me the company's Dragon capsule could take on a robotic mission to Mars as early as 2016. And he's already said it'd be theoretically possible to send humans to Mars in the next 10 to 20 years — bettering NASA's target timeframe of the mid-2030s. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 128 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Entrepreneurs Solve

NASA Funding is a waste – private entrepreneurs solve

Boyack, 5/27/8 (Connor, NQA, NASA, Legalized Theft, and a Waste of Money, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/nasa-legalized-theft-and-a-waste-of-money) Is there really anything incredible about giving billions of dollars to a bunch of rocket scientists and telling them to have fun? It doesn’t take the aforementioned rocket scientist to know that people behave differently when they aren’t spending their own money. They will take unnecessary risks, pay themselves greater salaries, and have no way of verifying whether what they are doing is cost-effective. Private entrepreneurs who actually have to work for their money and convince others of the worthiness of their endeavors are much more honorable. They do not rely on the the coercive arm of government and do not force others to subsidize their mistakes. And it is this system of private enterprise that the government discourages most. When the government taxes income, it taxes success. When the government prevents competition, it prevents progress. When the government regulates, it discourages innovation. The billions of dollars that get funneled into the black hole that is NASA are siphoned off from the productive private sector. However interesting one finds space travel, one must recognize that forcing other people to pay for one’s interests and hobbies is wrong. Raskin notes here the economic malfeasance taking place at the bidding of federal officials. Any intervention by central planners (namely, government officials) to alter the economy stifles progress and rewards those who are politically favored by the current establishment. Incompetence is thus allowed and rewarded, and the drive for innovation at the heart of all entrepreneurial endeavors becomes extinct. But ethical issues aside, is NASA a waste of money? Certainly there are positive results from NASA’s taxpayer-funded ventures. We have learned a great deal about the universe, and have been presented with many (hopefully not Photoshopped!) photos of celestial bodies. But despite the apparent rewards, it is impossible to ignore the heavy burden imposed upon citizens of this country. I can think of plenty of better ways to spend $17 billion this year, can’t you? The argument always made in favor of any policy or department created by our elected leaders is just that—we’ve elected these people through the democratic process, so if we don’t like what they’re doing, we’re free to vote them out of office. This concept, though, is intellectually and Constitutionally hollow; we do not have a democracy, nor are our leaders entitled to pass whatever laws they choose. Though the vast majority ignore and abuse it, our elected leaders have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which gives our federal branches of government enumerated (specific and limited) powers. This means that even if every single official in Congress was in favor of NASA, it is still illegal (since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as we all learned in school) to allow the federal government to have anything to do with it. Spare me all the platitudes of exploring God’s creations, learning more about ourselves and our planet’s history, and propelling humanity into the future. Any defense of a government-run space agency holds no water unless authority for such an initiative can be demonstrated. Instead, common sense and history both teach us that private enterprise will always succeed far better than any government-created enterprise, and at far less of an expense. Is the knowledge we’ve gained about our neighboring galaxies really worth $17 billion annually? Perhaps. Is it worth taking $17 billion in taxes from U.S. citizens each year by force? Absolutely not. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 129 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Kritik Cards**

Kritik Links- Colonization= Eurocentric

The colonization of mars would be unethical and would follow Eurocentric view as of native genocides

Harlow ‘96 [Morgan, studied American literature and film at University of Wisconsin, The Martian chronicles by ray Bradbury, 1996, http://www.wlajournal.com/17_1-2/harlow.pdf wfi-kc] Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 130 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Kritik Alternative- Solves Case/Comes First

Criticism is a prerequisite to colonization and must happen prior

Mitchell and Staretz, 2010 [Edgar and Robert, Apollo 14 Lunar Module Pilot and sixth person to walk on the moon, “Our Destiny—A Space Faring Civilization?” Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 12, 3500-3505. JournalofCosmology.com, October- November, 2010, Online, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars104.html] /WFI-MB Because of vested interests, short sightedness or personal short term gain all at the expense of long term sustainability, our politicians, many of our leaders and most of our citizenry have ignored, misunderstood or misrepresented the magnitude and nature of the issues facing our civilization for far too long. Perhaps even most pressing is our propensity to resolve our differences by violent rather than by peaceful means. Our technologies are now so powerful that not only do they enable us to explore the solar system but they are the very same ones that may lead to our demise if used to promote the goals of one group at the expense of others. Clearly before we can truly call ourselves a space faring civilization we must put aside these petty differences that are often driven by intolerance, greed, the need for power or the need for control that divide us. Five hundred years ago Christopher Columbus convinced Queen Isabel and King Fernando of Spain to fund a voyage to find an alternate route to India. Imagine the courage it took to make that journey. Even though most scholars at the time knew that the world was spherical, the consensus view of humanity was still that of a flat Earth. Casting aside those concerns of his crew, Columbus was aware that the trip would likely to be fraught with many unknown and unforeseen dangers. There was also the problem of estimating the duration of the trip and determining the provisions required to sustain the expedition on their journey. As the days stretched into weeks and the weeks into months, the mutinous clamor of the crew increased daily. Finally after 2 1/2 months that eventful journey finally sighted land and what followed became our history. Unfortunately for Columbus he never reached India, but instead opened up a whole new world that happened to be in the way. If we can get beyond the issues described above and some day land on that first foreign planet, surely whole new worlds will open up for us just as they did for those early European explorers. At that point we will finally be ready to assume our destiny as a space faring civilization. We will go not as citizens of the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia or any of the other 195 or so countries of this planet but instead as citizens of planet Earth. We will go with a common vision and mission for the betterment of all mankind. No other activity will unite the citizens of the world in a nobler endeavor. After early exploratory missions, our first objective should be a permanent colony on the moon and our second will most likely the establishment of one on Mars. The first manned colonies on both will be far more expensive and far more perilous than Columbus or his crews could have ever imagined. Columbus’ journey was financed by the court of Spain. Permanent colonies beyond Earth will be far too expensive for even the richest nations on Earth. They will likely be funded of necessity by a consortium of nations representing all of mankind. Our explorations and colonization will be full of challenges, fraught with dangers, but filled with incredible and unforeseen rewards and benefits to us all and to our progeny for many generations to come. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 131 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

**Disad Links**

Link-Spending/Budget DA

Link- Colonizing Mars will cost $150 billion dollars

Most estimates envision a Mars' mission with expenditures of less than $25 billion. For example, in 2002, the European Space Agency (ESA) proposed a joint mission with Russia which would cost $20 billion. This was a two spacecraft proposal, one carrying a six-person crew and the other the supplies. The mission would take about 440 days to complete with three astronauts visiting the surface of the planet for two months. Russia originally envisioned a manned Mars mission by 2015 (New Scientist, July, 2002). In 2007, NASA chief administrator, Michael Griffin suggested a human mission to Mars could cost as little as $11 billion. However, NASA's vague goal would be to put humans on Mars after the year 2035 (AFP Sep 24, 2007). NASA's current five-year budget is around $86 billion and the $11 billion estimate for a Human Mission to the Red Planet may be unrealistic. Thus, it is possible that a two year round trip journey to Mars could be accomplished with expenditures of around $20 billion whereas a more ambitious mission involving the establishment of a permanent Mars' base would cost considerably more. According to NASA, a single space shuttle cost around 1.6 billion dollars. Estimates are that the entire space shuttle program, since the program became operational in 1981, has cost $145 billion, with much of those costs having accrued in the first 10 years. Therefore, it could be estimated that a Mission to Mars and the establishment and maintenance of a permanent colony, with space craft journeying to and from the Red Planet, could cost around $145 billion over a 10 year period. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 132 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Budget DA Links-

Mars colonization is too expensive

James C. McLane III, 11 On to Mars -- but not back to Earth, http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/06/opinion/la-oe-mclane-mars-20110206, accessed 7-13-2011,WYO/JF We'll never be able to justify the cost of a Mars settlement based on potential economic payoffs because the benefits are distant and exotic. It's hard to predict the return from capital investment in things that haven't been tried before. But the builders of the Panama Canal, the U.S. transcontinental railroad and our interstate highway system couldn't have imagined the transforming, long-term benefits that have come from those projects. Such would be the case with the opening of a new frontier on Mars.

Colonization is too expensive

Jacob 2-11-2011 [Jijo, Jijo Jacob is a staff writer for the International Business Times, Mars for sale! NASA draws up plan to colonize red planet with cooperate help, 2-11-2011, http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/111476/20110211/nasa-mars- colonization-red-planet-mission-space-one-way-corporate-sponsorship.htm WFI-JG] NASA scientists have said in a research paper that corporate financing is the right way to support a $160-billion project to take human beings to Mars and start a colony there, according to space.com. Joel Levine, a senior research scientist at NASA Langley Research Center, calls is a "revolutionary business proposal" as it removes budgetary bottlenecks that have diluted the Mars mission's focus over the years. Wyoming Forensics Institute 2011 133 Bausch/Montreuil Lab Mission to Mars Aff

Budget DA Links-

There is no point in continually funding nasa billions of dollars to mess around with

Boyack, 5/27/8 (Connor, NQA, NASA, Legalized Theft, and a Waste of Money, http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/nasa-legalized-theft-and-a-waste-of-money) Since its inception, so-called leaders in government have been quite fond of this un-Constitutional agency. NASA’s $17 billion annual budget is a taxpayer black hole of astronomical proportions, providing scientists with the resulting bounty of legalized theft. Max Raskin eloquently portrayed the NASA problem thusly: Is there really anything incredible about giving billions of dollars to a bunch of rocket scientists and telling them to have fun? It doesn’t take the aforementioned rocket scientist to know that people behave differently when they aren’t spending their own money. They will take unnecessary risks, pay themselves greater salaries, and have no way of verifying whether what they are doing is cost-effective. Private entrepreneurs who actually have to work for their money and convince others of the worthiness of their endeavors are much more honorable. They do not rely on the the coercive arm of government and do not force others to subsidize their mistakes. And it is this system of private enterprise that the government discourages most. When the government taxes income, it taxes success. When the government prevents competition, it prevents progress. When the government regulates, it discourages innovation. The billions of dollars that get funneled into the black hole that is NASA are siphoned off from the productive private sector. However interesting one finds space travel, one must recognize that forcing other people to pay for one’s interests and hobbies is wrong. Raskin notes here the economic malfeasance taking place at the bidding of federal officials. Any intervention by central planners (namely, government officials) to alter the economy stifles progress and rewards those who are politically favored by the current establishment. Incompetence is thus allowed and rewarded, and the drive for innovation at the heart of all entrepreneurial endeavors becomes extinct. But ethical issues aside, is NASA a waste of money? Certainly there are positive results from NASA’s taxpayer-funded ventures. We have learned a great deal about the universe, and have been presented with many (hopefully not Photoshopped!) photos of celestial bodies. But despite the apparent rewards, it is impossible to ignore the heavy burden imposed upon citizens of this country. I can think of plenty of better ways to spend $17 billion this year, can’t you? The argument always made in favor of any policy or department created by our elected leaders is just that—we’ve elected these people through the democratic process, so if we don’t like what they’re doing, we’re free to vote them out of office. This concept, though, is intellectually and Constitutionally hollow; we do not have a democracy, nor are our leaders entitled to pass whatever laws they choose. Though the vast majority ignore and abuse it, our elected leaders have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, which gives our federal branches of government enumerated (specific and limited) powers. This means that even if every single official in Congress was in favor of NASA, it is still illegal (since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as we all learned in school) to allow the federal government to have anything to do with it. Spare me all the platitudes of exploring God’s creations, learning more about ourselves and our planet’s history, and propelling humanity into the future. Any defense of a government-run space agency holds no water unless authority for such an initiative can be demonstrated. Instead, common sense and history both teach us that private enterprise will always succeed far better than any government-created enterprise, and at far less of an expense. Is the knowledge we’ve gained about our neighboring galaxies really worth $17 billion annually? Perhaps. Is it worth taking $17 billion in taxes from U.S. citizens Wyoming Debate 11 134 TCram (Preseason) File Title

Link-Politics

Link-Plan is unpopular- mere mention of Mars draws ridicule

London Times 7/9 ( “The Rockets Red Glare”, Lexis Nexis, 2011)

Two years before Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon, Nasa was already clear in its collective mind that the next step in its human exploration of space should be to build a fully re-usable space transport to build an orbiting space station from which eventually to go to Mars. In 2011, with American debt approaching $15 trillion and unemployment at 9.2 per cent, the mere mention of Mars invites ridicule. For the same reasons, President Obama has scrapped the Constellation rocket project that was supposed to ferry astronauts to space after the shuttle. Instead they will go there, if they must, in Russian rockets at $56 million per seat.

Link-Plan is unpopular- way too big a deficit for plan to be popular

National Journal 7/7 (“NASA looks to uncertain future”, Lexis Nexis, 2011)

What then? President Obama and powerful lawmakers in both parties have all vowed to begin a new chapter in human space exploration. But almost no one is clear about what the next phase should accomplish, or why. President George W. Bush's underfunded plan for space exploration after the shuttle is on life support. Obama has extended U.S. participation in the International Space Station until 2020, but critics say that the station has been a $100 billion waste of money. And although Obama has embraced Bush's goal of sending humans to Mars, neither the administration nor Congress has made more than a tiny down payment on the project. The timing couldn't be worse. Analysts estimate that the upfront cost of building a new generation of rockets and spacecraft could easily hit $50 billion, and the missions would cost countless billions more. At a time when Republicans and Democrats are fighting over whether to cut federal spending by $2 trillion or $4 trillion over the next decade, that could be a tough dream to sell.

Link-Plan is unpopular- Congress doesn’t want to fund Mars projects

NPR 10 (October 1, “What are the challenges of ‘trailblazing Mars’?”, Talk of the Nation, Lexis Nexis, October 1)

There were some earlier complaints from NASA supporters on Capitol Hill that there was not enough money being set aside for the new heavy-lift launch rocket, which would pave the way either to going to an asteroid or going on to Mars or both. And so if you don't have enough money there, then it takes longer to build it, and then we're more dependent on the Russians to get people to the space station on Soyuz ships because we don't have enough money for the commercial capsules just yet. So it's always been a case of you get what you pay for, and the concern is that the White House and Capitol Hill may not spend enough in order to be able to get NASA going. And should they spend that money? There's an equally good debate that maybe this money would be better being spent on something else.