Control + 1 Block Headings s10

0f03359fa9698fdde056aa63b2a8ea19.doc

DDW 2011

AT: T – Substantial...... 2 AT: T – Space...... 3 AT: T-"Beyond the Earth's Mesosphere"...... 4 AT: NASA Cred DA...... 5 AT: Debt Ceiling (1/2)...... 6 AT: Debt Ceiling (2/2)...... 7 AT: China Relations DA (1/2)...... 8 AT: China Relations DA (2/2)...... 9 AT: Spending DA (1/3)...... 10 AT: Spending DA (2/3)...... 11 AT: Spending DA (3/3)...... 12 AT: Stem CP (1/2)...... 13 AT: Stem CP (2/2)...... 14 AT: Tax Incentives CP (1/2)...... 15 AT: Tax Incentives CP (2/2)...... 16 AT: Prizes CP (1/3)...... 17 AT: Prizes CP (2/3)...... 18 AT: Prizes CP (3/3)...... 19 AT: Security K (1/2)...... 20 AT: Security K (2/3)...... 21 AT: Security K (3/3)...... 22

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 1 0f03359fa9698fdde056aa63b2a8ea19.doc

DDW 2011

AT: T – Substantial

1. Mars funding is the largest part of NASA’s budget, means that the budget increase is substantial in the overall program

2. Mars is over 2 billion – that’s substantial Courtland 12/4 Rachel, (reporter @ News Science) 04 December 2008 “Over-budget Mars rover mission delayed until 2011” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16202-overbudget-mars-rover-mission-delayed-until-2011.html “But we've determined that trying for '09 would require us to assume too much risk - more than I think is appropriate for a flagship mission like Mars Science Laboratory," Griffin said. Swelling costs The added delay will bring the total lifetime cost of the rover mission to more than $2.2 billion . MSL is already $300 million over its proposed 2006 budget of $1.6 billion. Former NASA science chief Alan Stern criticised such overspends in a recent editorial in the New York Times, arguing that they sharply limit the number and capability of missions the agency can undertake.

3. Contextually substantial - Substantial means important. Oxford Dictionary of English, 2005, Oxford Reference Online, http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/views/ENTRY.html?entry=t140.e76634&srn=7&ssid=1046855207#FIRSTHIT substantial → adjective of considerable importance, size, or worth: a substantial amount of cash. • strongly built or made: a row of substantial Victorian villas. • (of a meal) large and filling. • important in material or social terms; wealthy: a substantial Devon family. 2. concerning the essentials of something: there was substantial agreement on changing policies. 3. real and tangible rather than imaginary: spirits are shadowy, human beings substantial.

Contextually we meet this definition, that’s Boyle 6/8

5. Colonization affs are the nexus question in the literature – the neg gets links to all major DA’s and CPs

6. Definition of substantially is arbitrary theirs is from legislation that bush passed specific to NASA’s budget in 08

7. Their ev isn’t exclusionary only say 2.6 is substantial not 2.2 isn’t

8. Competing interpretations creates a race-to-the-bottom – hurting education. As long as we provide a reasonable interpretation there’s no reason to vote us down

9. Don’t vote on potential abuse – make them prove in round abuse. This round doesn’t set a precedent.

DDW 2011

AT: T – Space

1. Mars is between Earth and Jupiter. Those celestial bodies meet their definition. We dare them to read a card that space is not beyond the mesosphere or in outer space.

2. The plan supports travel between earth and Mars. That also meets their interpretation

3. Space is everything Thefreedictionary.com, no date (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/space, 6/23/11, JPW) Mathematics A set of elements or points satisfying specified geometric postulates: non-Euclidean space. The infinite extension of the three-dimensional region in which all matter exists.

4. Mesosphere is the part of the atmosphere beginning at 60 km NASA 1 “TIMED” National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 2001; http://science1.nasa.gov/missions/timed/ Thermosphere, Ionosphere, Mesosphere Energetics and Dynamics (TIMED) explores the Earth's Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (60- 180 kilometers up), the least explored and understood region of our atmosphere. It is known that the global structure of this region can be perturbed during stratospheric warmings and solar-terrestrial events, but the overall structure and dynamics responses of these effects are not understood. Advances in remote sensing technology employed by TIMED will enable us to explore this region on a global basis from space.

5. Experts support including Mars Lester and Robinson 9 Daniel F. Lester, Michael Robinson, Department of Astronomy C1400, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712, USA b Hillyer College, University of Hartford, Visiions of Exploration, Space Policy 25 (2009), p. 237 LS The optimal strategy for US space exploration has recently been the subject of some decidedly revisionist thinking, manifested in the February 2008 workshop ‘‘Examining the Vision: Balancing Science and Exploration’’ sponsored by Stanford University and the Planetary Society [3]. Human space exploration was defined implicitly by the participants with an implementation plan e to wit ‘‘the purpose of sustained human exploration is to go to Mars and beyond’’. This, and also the view that science is a beneficiary of human space flight but is not its primary motivation, is consistent with the thinking of the Aldridge Commission. This consistency became a matter of revisionism here because, following the Aldridge Report with its broad set of science goals, the NASA exploration enterprise subsequently became narrowly focused on lunar return.

6. That’s best for debate – a. Their burden to prove our interp is something that can’t be debated, no reason why it uniquely explodes the topic b. Doesn’t clearly exclude mars means the limits debate is totally arbitrary, our is inclusive of the aff c. They exclude the affirmative which is a core issue, means they limit out most of the in-depth education on the topic

7. Evaluate T in terms of Reasonability – As long as our interp provides a reasonable interpretation of the topic there’s no reason to vote us down.

DDW 2011

AT: T-"Beyond the Earth's Mesosphere"

1. We meet – curiosity, what MSL is funding will travel to space 2. We meet – Gong to mars is exploration beyond the mesosphere Haque 11(Shirin Haque, Ph.D. Astronomer, University of the West Indies, January 2011, “The Beckoning Red Dot in the Sky,” http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars151.html, JF) Going to Mars is nothing more than the next logical step in our advancement of discovery and exploration. It must be done. Until we can do it -- we remain restless caged spirits. Sometimes, like in the case of the lunar landings, there was the dynamics of political agendas. Had there not been political agendas, I believe with certainty that humans would have landed on the moon nonetheless. It was the logical step at the time. The opportunity to make history, to be the early charters risking it all is a small price for the satisfaction of doing it. It is an elixir of life only to experienced. It is a part of us in the deepest sense and what makes us human.

DDW 2011

AT: NASA Cred DA

1. O’neil only says that MSL spending and lack of funding is killing NASA’s timeframe, not that it kills NASA cred

2. Their ev. Is specific to the 2009 failed launch. Says if it doesn’t launch then it hurts NASA cred. It didn’t launch then means their impacts false.

DDW 2011

AT: Debt Ceiling (1/2)

1. Debt Ceiling won’t pass- Sanders and Congressional partisanship blocks Eskow, Richard Eskow, Consultant, Writer, Senior Fellow with The Campaign for America's Future, June 29, 2011, “When a Socialist Speaks for Most Republicans, Who Speaks for You?”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/when-a-socialist-speaks- f_b_886624.html, Date accessed June 29, 2011 How broken is today's political debate? The only politician standing up for most Republican voters on today's most burning political issue is... a Socialist. The question is whether we reduce the deficit only through spending cuts, or also by raising taxes on the rich. This should be an easy issue for Democrats to stand on... and run on. A recent New York Times/CBS news poll showed that 72% of of those surveyed agreed that federal taxes should be raised for households making more than $250,000 -- including 55% of Republicans. Yet even with the GOP leadership far to the right of the country on this issue, Democrats haven't taken an unequivocal position.Who's speaking for this Republican majority (and most everybody else) in Washington? Only Sen. Bernie Sanders, Socialist from Vermont. Sanders has unequivocally said that he won't support a deal to raise the debt ceiling unless it includes higher taxes on on the rich. Where are the Democrats? Nancy Pelosi's been marginalized from the discussions, even though a deal won't be possible without the support of Democrats in Congress. The White House and Harry Reid have refused to take a firm stand. Sanders laid out his position in a speech in the Senate chamber yesterday with a "shared sacrifice" theme: The wealthiest Americans and the most profitable corporations in this country must pay their fair share. At least 50 percent of any deficit reduction package must come from revenue raised by ending tax breaks for the wealthy and eliminating tax loopholes that benefit large, profitable corporations and Wall Street financial institutions. A sensible deficit reduction package must also include significant cuts to unnecessary and wasteful Pentagon spending. The Republicans insist on rejecting a majority of their own voters, as well as 74% of Independents and 83% of all Democrats, by pushing for a plan that would reduce government deficits exclusively through spending cuts -- cuts that affect the middle class, poor people, and everyone who hopes to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits someday. The "shared sacrifice" principle expressed by Sanders also included demands that there be no cuts to Medicare or Social Security. The 50/50 goal is a reasonable one, which makes it surprising that others haven't embraced it already. In fact, the only problem with a 50/50 split is that it may be too reasonable, now that the rich have become so much richer and the rest of the country has been forced to struggle so much.

2. Fiat solves means plan passes least resistance, doesn’t get caught in political battles

3. SKFTA overwhelms Obama’s agenda and will derail debt ceiling Drajem, Mark Drajem, is a writer for Bloomburg News, June 30, 2011, is a reporter for Bloomberg News. “Republican Trade Boycott Derails Swift Vote”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/republican-boycott-of-free-trade-accords-derails-obama- push-for-swift-vote.html, Date accessed July 1, 2011 A Republican boycott of a Senate hearing on three free-trade agreements set back efforts by President Barack Obama and business groups to get the long- delayed accords completed before a recess in August. The Senate Finance Committee was unable to consider trade pacts with South Korea, Colombia and Panama yesterday because no Republicans showed up, denying Democrats a quorum to advance measures that have languished since 2007. Republicans balked at including aid for displaced workers in the trade package. “I don’t understand why the Republicans are playing it out like this,” William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a Washington-based group that represents companies such as Boeing Co. (BA), said in an interview. “They spent 2 1/2 years waiting for Obama to send these up. He basically folded, and as these things go the price was cheap.” The additional worker-aid programs are estimated to cost $320 million annually for the next two years, according to the Senate committee. The blow-up denied both sides a bipartisan victory they said they wanted on deals supporters say may increase exports by $12 billion a year and boost the still-struggling U.S. economy. A separate South Korean free-trade deal with the European Union goes into effect today, which would put U.S. producers of autos, pharmaceuticals and scientific equipment at a disadvantage in the Asian economy. Democrats said yesterday’s dispute was also a portent for debt-ceiling talks between Republicans and Obama. “It’s a big question mark as to where this goes,” Greg Mastel, a lobbyist and former chief of staff to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, said in an interview. “Trade has traditionally been one of the more bipartisan areas Congress has worked on. If they can’t work out the FTAs, the debt limit could be pretty difficult.”

DDW 2011

AT: Debt Ceiling (2/2)

4. NASA spending would not be perceived for months Boyle 10 Rebecca Boyle, Staff writer for Popsci, “NASA Budget Likely to Remain in Limbo Until After Election Day, Lawmakers Say”, 9/23/2010, http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-09/nasa-waits-while-congress-debates. Apparently, space doesn’t sell in an election year. Lawmakers are saying Congress is unlikely to make any spending decisions about NASA until after November 2, according to several reports. Congress has been debating the space agency’s future in fits and starts since the beginning of the year, when President Obama first proposed shifting its priorities. Lawmakers balked at his plans and offered their own budget suggestions, which have been bandied about through the summer. Still, competing House and Senate bills remain in play, and they’re unlikely to get resolved in the next two weeks, when Congress goes on fall break to concentrate on the midterm elections. There were some signs of hope today, however. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has been negotiating a new blueprint with Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., according to Florida Today. If the two reach a compromise, the House could debate a NASA bill by next week, according to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. Those in favor of NASA funding increases should hope they act quickly, because Republican leaders have said if they regain control of Congress, they’ll call for a spending freeze and a return to 2008 funding levels.

5. Logical policy maker would pass the plan and debt ceiling, no reason the aff is uniquely key

6. MSL boosts political capital Aviation Week & Space Technology 05 (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11/12/05, “Lunar Exploration Vision Obscures Successes on Mars,” http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1075, JF) The Mars project argued hard for twin MSL rovers for hardware and scientific redundancy--just as was done for the current rovers. But that has been ruled out, and the emphasis now needs to be on maintaining an unwavering focus on MSL funding, technology and testing. To deemphasize the robotic Mars program now, in a tradeoff with the manned lunar vision, would be a terrible mistake. Washington needs to be reawakened to the quantifiable payoff the robotic Mars program brings now, in terms of NASA political capital in Congress and scientific, educational and technological benefits to the U.S. as a whole. Accompanying these factors is exploration as a positive symbol of America's contributions to all mankind.

7. Mars Mission is the only mission that’s politically popular Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer – Lexington Institute, “Human Spaceflight”, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf) Mars is the sole destination for the human spaceflight program that can generate sufficient scientific benefits to justify the scale of expenditures required. It is also the only destination likely to sustain political support across multiple presidential administrations. Mars is the most Earth-like place in the known universe beyond our own planet, and it is the one location that could conceivably support a self-sustaining human colony. It has water, seasons, atmosphere and other features that may hold important lessons for the future of the Earth, but unlocking those lessons would require a sustained human presence on the Red Planet’s surface.

8. We solve the terminal impact heg key to the economy Carla Norrlof ( Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Toronto) 2010 “ America’s Global Advantage US Hegemony and International Cooperation” Cambridge University Press http://magbooks.org/post-9334/americas-global-advantage- us-hegemony-and-international-cooperation As can be seen from table 6.1, there is a strong correlation between military successes and increased financial flows into the United States, providing support for the hypothesis that the United States has collected a security premium. A positive relationship is said to exist if financial flows increase/decrease the year following military success/ defeat. Military success (defeat) is indicated with a + (–) sign next to the year the operation was undertaken. Specifically, we see that in 77 percent of the COW cases, military successes are positively correlated with increased financial flows, and military defeats positively correlated with reduced financial flows. This figure is conservative and does not include the terrorist attacks on the United States, as explained above. Taking the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon into account increases the correspondence between military interventions and financial flows to 85 percent. If we expand the set of cases to include those assessed against reporting in The Economist on the war on Iraq, 82 percent of the cases either depict a

DDW 2011

positive relationship between military victory and the ability to attract capital or between military loss and the retreat of foreign capital. Again, if this figure takes the 9/11 attacks into account, the correspondence is 88 percent. AT: China Relations DA (1/2)

1. Relations low now - climate and monetary agreements at a standstill Kollewe 10 Julia Kollewe and agencies, The Guardian, Thursday 7 October 2010 “China warns against rapid rise in yuan” Wen Jiabao tells EU to stop pressuring Beijing to revalue the yuan or risk unleashing serious social unrest in China http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/06/currency-war-warning-imf-chief China has also gotten into a row with the world’s largest economy America. The United States Congress has decided that in the interest of manufacturing sector in America, that it is time the Chinese raise the value of their currency to make their goods more expensive or they will begin placing a tariff on imports from China. This scheme hopes to develop US manufacturing domestically and cut exports from China to create jobs and cut China out of US domestic markets. China is becoming the scapegoat of America’s political leaders who have failed to ensure stable growth, jobs, and responsible fiscal governance. The US is risking relations with China to distract the American people from their own political mess, rather than waiting for the Yuan to naturally appreciate (which it is, see My Article); this is terrible Foreign Policy! Now the Europeans are following suite with their own requests for China to raise the Yuan’s value to help raise their own manufacturing base to export their way out of recession. On top of currency issues, China and the US are at a standstill with current climate and trade agreements . Agreements made at Copenhagen are becoming unacceptable to China and the developing nations as they struggle to survive and sustain growth during the recession.

2. China says no – unwilling to deal with US misgivings Keith Richburg, Washington Post staff writer, Staff researchers Liu Liu in Beijing and Wang Juan in Shanghai, 1/22/11, “Mistrust stalls U.S.-China space cooperation”//jchen BEIJING - China's grand ambitions extend literally to the moon, with the country now embarked on a multi-pronged program to establish its own global navigational system, launch a space laboratory and put a Chinese astronaut on the moon within the next decade. The Obama administration views space as ripe territory for cooperation with China. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has called it one of four potential areas of "strategic dialogue," along with cybersecurity, missile defense and nuclear weapons. And President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao vowed after their White House summit last week to "deepen dialogue and exchanges" in the field. But as China ramps up its space initiatives, the diplomatic talk of cooperation has so far found little traction. The Chinese leadership has shown scant interest in opening up the most sensitive details of its program, much of which is controlled by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). At the same time, Chinese scientists and space officials say that Washington's wariness of China's intentions in space, as well as U.S. bans on some high-technology exports, makes cooperation problematic. On the day Hu left for his U.S. trip, Chinese news media reported the inauguration of a new program to train astronauts - called taikonauts here - for eventual deployment to the first Chinese space station, planned for 2015. As part of the project, two launches are planned for this year, that of an unmanned space module, called Tiangong-1, or "Heavenly Palace," by summer, and later an unmanned Shenzhou spacecraft that will attempt to dock with it.

3: Their Bao 7 evidence says that unilateral U.S action tanks talks, but they haven’t proven that talks are happening now. Our Richburg evidence above indicates that talks have actually failed means that they can’t establish an internal link to their impacts.

DDW 2011

AT: China Relations DA (2/2)

4. Relations will result in space Pearl Harbor Logan 8 CRS Report for Congress: China’s Space Program: Options for U.S.-China Cooperation by Jeffrey Logan, Specialist in Energy Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division 9-29-2008 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22777.pdf Inadvertent technology transfer: From this perspective, increased space cooperation with China should be avoided until Chinese intentions are clearer. Joint space activities could lead to more rapid (dual-use) technology transfer to China, and in a worst-case scenario, result in a “space Pearl Harbor,” as postulated by a congressionally appointed commission led by Donald Rumsfeld in 2001. Moral compromise. China is widely criticized for its record on human rights and non- democratic governance. Any collaboration that improves the standing of authoritarian Chinese leaders might thus be viewed as unacceptable. Ineffectiveness. Some argue that increased collaboration will not produce tangible benefits for the United States, especially without a new bilateral political climate.

5. Global warming doesn’t risk extinction – doomsayers are wrong Bailey, award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine, testified before Congress, author of numerous books, member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, 2k [ Ronald, “Earth Day, Then and Now The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why.”, http://reason.com/archives/2000/05/01/earth-day-then-and-now/4] Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of apocalyptic predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared to a Swarthmore College audience on April 19, 1970. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. " "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after Earth Day, even the staid New York Times editorial page warned, "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." Very Apocalypse Now. Three decades later, of course, the world hasn't come to an end; if anything, the planet's ecological future has never looked so promising. With half a billion people suiting up around the globe for Earth Day 2000, now is a good time to look back on the predictions made at the first Earth Day and see how they've held up and what we can learn from them. The short answer: The prophets of doom were not simply wrong, but spectacularly wrong. More important, many contemporary environmental alarmists are similarly mistaken when they continue to insist that the Earth's future remains an eco-tragedy that has already entered its final act. Such doomsters not only fail to appreciate the huge environmental gains made over the past 30 years, they ignore the simple fact that increased wealth, population, and technological innovation don't degrade and destroy the environment. Rather, such developments preserve and enrich the environment. If it is impossible to predict fully the future, it is nonetheless possible to learn from the past. And the best lesson we can learn from revisiting the discourse surrounding the very first Earth Day is that passionate concern, however sincere, is no substitute for rational analysis.

6. No impact U.S Chinese coop can’t solve the environment. Chinese leadership has empirically proven intransigent when it comes to reforming their environmental policies because they are afraid reform would hurt their GDP growth.

7. Economic decline doesn’t cause war – Mead is wrong Ferguson 2006 (Niall, MA, D.Phil., is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University. He is a resident faculty member of the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies. He is also a Senior Reseach Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct) Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some severe economic crises

DDW 2011

were not followed by wars.

DDW 2011

AT: Spending DA (1/3)

1. If the Mars Rover Curiosity is not launched this November the launch will have to be delayed for another 26 months, costing an additional $570 million. Moskowitz, Clara. SPACE.com, Senior Writer. June 8th, 2011. SPACE.com. “NASA’s Next Mars Rover Still Faces Big Challenges, Audit Reveals.” Because the orbits of Earth and Mars don't align often, NASA is trying furiously to meet the 2011 launch window, which opens Nov. 25. The rover team currently has a margin of roughly 20 extra days built into the schedule in case things take longer than planned to finish up before launch. "We do feel very confident right now that given the work yet to go and the schedule that we have, that that amount of margin is sufficient," Lavery said. "We should be all set for a successful launch on the 25th of November." [Video: How Mars Rover Curiosity Will Land] But if Curiosity doesn't launch in that window, the agency will have to wait 26 months — more than two years — for another launch window. Such a delay would require a mission redesign costing another $570 million, the Inspector General's report found.

2. Plan creates jobs – empirically proven Paul McDougall (editor at large for informationweek) 2/3/10 “NASA plans manned missions to mars” http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/222600942 RM "The president's proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of US human space flight," said Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala), in a statement. Shelby also characterized private space contractors as "hobbyists" that lack a track record when it comes to successfully and safely launching space vehicles carrying humans. Resuming trips to the moon, which astronauts have not visited since Apollo 17's trip there in 1972, was a key part of former president George W. Bush's plan for increased space exploration. Constellation was expected to create thousands of jobs in various parts of the country, and Congressional members in states affected by the cuts vowed to fight to keep the plan intact. "Based on initial reports about the administration's plan for NASA, they are replacing lost shuttle jobs in Florida too slowly, risking U.S. leadership in space to China and Russia, and relying too heavily on unproven commercial companies," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla)

3. Jobs key to economy Paul Wiseman 12/8/10 “Economy is making steady gains despite weak hiring” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp? newsitemid=116695 The US economy is starting to fire on almost every cylinder these days but the one that matters most: Job creation. Factories are busier. Incomes are rising. Autos are selling. The holiday shopping season is shaping up as the best in four years. Stock prices are surging. And many analysts are raising their forecasts for the economy’s growth. Goldman Sachs, for instance, just revised its gloomy prediction of a 2% increase in gross domestic product in 2011 to 2.7% and forecast 3.6% growth for 2012. “The upward momentum has more traction this time,” says James O’Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global. If only every major pillar of the economy were faring so well. Despite weeks of brighter economic news, employers still aren’t hiring freely. The economy added a net total of just 39,000 jobs in November, the government said on Friday. That’s far too few even to stabilise the unemployment rate, which rose from 9.6% in October to 9.8% last month. Unemployment is widely expected to stay above 9% through next year, in part because of the still-depressed real estate industry. Job creation ultimately drives the economy, and it remains the most significant weak link. The meagre job gains for November confounded economists. They’d expected net job growth to reach 145,000 and for the unemployment rate to stay at 9.6%. Some economists dismissed the November data as a technical fluke, a result of the government’s difficulty in adjusting the figures for seasonal factors. They think the number will be revised up later. Others saw the jobs report as a reminder that the economy is still struggling to emerge from an epic financial crisis that choked off credit, stifled spending and escalated a “normal” recession into the worst in 70 years. The depth of the financial crisis means the recovery will proceed more slowly than many had hoped or expected, they say.

DDW 2011

4. We solve the terminal impact – not only does space exploration harbor international peace, but every dollar we spend we receive eight in economic benefit G. Scott Hubbard, (professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University and former director of the NASA Ames Research Center) 1/11/08 “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum” http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/ MES The debate about the relative merits of exploring space with humans and robots is as old as the space program itself. Werner Von Braun, a moving force behind the Apollo Program that sent humans to the moon and the architect of the mighty Saturn V rocket, believed passionately in the value of human exploration — especially when it meant beating the hated Soviet Empire. James Van Allen, discoverer of the magnetic fields that bear his name, was equally ardent and vocal about the value of robotic exploration. There are five arguments that are advanced in any discussion about the utility of space exploration and the roles of humans and robots. Those arguments, in roughly ascending order of advocate support, are the following: 1. Space exploration will eventually allow us to establish a human civilization on another world (e.g., Mars) as a hedge against the type of catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs. 2. We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering. 3. Space exploration in an international context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs. 4. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration. 5. Exploration of space will provide humanity with an answer to the most fundamental questions: Are we alone? Are there other forms of life beside those on Earth? It is these last two arguments that are the most compelling to me. It is challenging to make the case that humans are necessary to the type of scientific exploration that may bring evidence of life on another world. There are strong arguments on both sides. Personally, I think humans will be better at unstructured environment exploration than any existing robot for a very long time. There are those who say that exploration with humans is simply too expensive for the return we receive. However, I cannot imagine any U.S. President announcing that we are abandoning space exploration with humans and leaving it to the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese or any other group. I can imagine the U.S. engaging in much more expansive international cooperation. Humans will be exploring space. The challenge is to be sure that they accomplish meaningful exploration.

DDW 2011

5. Spending is key to the economy Blinder 6/20 [Alan S. ( professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve) “The GOP Myth of 'Job-Killing' Spending” June 20, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303635604576392023187860688.html] It was the British economist John Maynard Keynes who famously wrote that ideas, "both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else." Right now, I'm worried about the damage that might be done by one particularly wrong-headed idea: the notion that, in stark contrast to Keynes's teaching, government spending destroys jobs. No, that's not a typo. House Speaker John Boehner and other Republicans regularly rail against "job-killing government spending." Think about that for a minute. The claim is that employment actually declines when federal spending rises. Using the same illogic, employment should soar if we made massive cuts in public spending—as some are advocating right now. Acting on such a belief would imperil a still-shaky economy that is not generating nearly enough jobs. So let's ask: How, exactly, could more government spending "kill jobs"? It is easy, but irrelevant, to understand how someone might object to any particular item in the federal budget— whether it is the war in Afghanistan, ethanol subsidies, Social Security benefits, or building bridges to nowhere. But even building bridges to nowhere would create jobs, not destroy them, as the congressman from nowhere knows. To be sure, that is not a valid argument for building them. Dumb public spending deserves to be rejected—but not because it kills jobs. The generic conservative view that government is "too big" in some abstract sense leads to a strong predisposition against spending. OK. But the question remains: How can the government destroy jobs by either hiring people directly or buying things from private companies? For example, how is it that public purchases of computers destroy jobs but private purchases of computers create them? One possible answer is that the taxes necessary to pay for the government spending destroy more jobs than the spending creates. That's a logical possibility, although it would require extremely inept choices of how to spend the money and how to raise the revenue. But tax-financed spending is not what's at issue today. The current debate is about deficit spending: raising spending without raising taxes. For example, the large fiscal stimulus enacted in 2009 was not "paid for." Yet it has been claimed that it created essentially no jobs. Really? With spending under the Recovery Act exceeding $600 billion (and tax cuts exceeding $200 billion), that would be quite a trick. How in the world could all that spending, accompanied by tax cuts, fail to raise employment? In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the stimulus's effect on employment in 2010 was at least 1.3 million net new jobs, and perhaps as many as 3.3 million. A second job-destroying mechanism operates through higher interest rates. When the government borrows to finance spending, that pushes interest rates up, which dissuades some businesses from investing. Thus falling private investment destroys jobs just as rising government spending is creating them. There are times when this "crowding-out" argument is relevant. But not today. The Federal Reserve has been holding interest rates at ultra-low levels for several years, and will continue to do so. If interest rates don't rise, you don't get crowding out. In sum, you may view any particular public-spending program as wasteful, inefficient, leading to "big government" or objectionable on some other grounds. But if it's not financed with higher taxes, and if it doesn't drive up interest rates, it's hard to see how it can destroy jobs. Let's try one final argument that is making the rounds today. Large deficits, it is claimed, are creating huge uncertainties (e.g., over what will eventually be done to reduce them) and those uncertainties are depressing business investment. The corollary is a variant of what my Princeton colleague Paul Krugman calls the Confidence Fairy: If you cut spending sharply, confidence will soar, spurring employment and investment. As a matter of pure logic, that could be true. But is there evidence? Yes, clear evidence—that points in the opposite direction. Business investment in equipment and software has been booming, not sagging. Specifically, while real gross domestic product grew a paltry 2.3% over the last four quarters, business spending on equipment and software skyrocketed 14.7%. No doubt, there is lots of uncertainty. But investment is soaring anyway. Despite all this evidence and logic, some people still claim that fiscal stimulus won't create jobs. Spending cuts, they insist, are the route to higher employment. And ideas have consequences. One possibly frightening consequence is that our limping economy might have one of its two crutches—fiscal policy—kicked out from under it in an orgy of premature expenditure cutting. Given the current jobs emergency, that would be tragic.

DDW 2011

AT: Stem CP (1/2)

1. Perm do both

2. Their Pollack 5 evidence just says that regular STEM education needs to be increased and the only reason it is unsuccessful is because there isn’t enough of it, not that it needs to be reformed

3. Can’t solve the IL to heg, it’s specific to funding for NASA specifically and the international perception of it

4. Development of NASA programs is key to education William R. Hawkins (a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues) “Forfeiting U.S. leadership in space” 3/7/11 http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8906/pub_detail.asp RM NASA knows, "The core elements to a successful implementation are a space launch system and a multipurpose crew vehicle to serve as our national capability to conduct advanced missions beyond low Earth orbit. Developing this combined system will enable us to reach cislunar space, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, and other celestial bodies." Tragically, no one higher up in Washington, either at the White House or in Congress, has cared enough about the nation's future in space to do anything about funding such a project. As long as there are still satellites that can beam down episodes of "American Idol" to a nation of couch potatoes, who cares about achieving anything more? NASA is one of the few government programs than actually deserves to be called an investment. Its 2012 request of $18 billion is only 0.4 percent of a $3.7 trillion Federal budget. The bailout money given to the AIG insurance company would have funded NASA for a decade. Yet, the technology the space program has generated for society has rewarded taxpayers many times over. And developing new generations of scientific breakthroughs will continue to be a major strategic goal of the program. NASA's role extends beyond the agency's own work. It has served as a stimulus for education and industry. It's 2011 report states, "One of NASA's top strategic goals is to Inspire students to be our future scientists, engineers, explorers, and educators through interactions with NASA’s people, missions, research, and facilities." At a time when the performance of American students in math and science has fallen behind that of most of the world, there needs to be a new push to stimulate the public imagination and to provide rewarding careers for a new generation of innovative thinkers. But with NASA doing less in space, from where is the inspiration to come? Designing more video games? The NASA report raises concerns about how to keep even its current high-skilled workforce employed, noting. "The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 is ushering in a tran sition period for the Nation’s human space flight workforce." New programs, such as "development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth’s orbit, including a mission to an asteroid next decade" are supposed to provide some jobs, but not enough. Shifting work to "green technology" and the study of "global warming" will not lead to new adventures in manned space exploration

5. Perm do the plan and then implement an “All STEM for Some” approach

6. No reason why the plan prevents STEM education, if anything it helps because young kids see space exploration as field that they want to go into. Mars is the key catalyst to have interest in the space programs – that’s Stevens in 7

DDW 2011

AT: Stem CP (2/2)

7. Colonization revitalizes American democracy Zubrin 96 (Robert Zubrin, former Chairman of the National Space Society, President of the Mars Society, and author of The Case For Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, Ad Astra May/June 1996, “The Promise of Mars,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.html, JF) 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.

8. Democracy solves nuclear and biological warfare, genocide and environmental destruction Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html // 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. 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.

DDW 2011

AT: Tax Incentives CP (1/2)

1. Perm do both

2. Space privatization leads to space pollution, waste of taxpayer dollars, and privatization of any profits. Gagnon 03 (Bruce, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and Senior Fellow at The Nuclear Policy Research Institute, “Space Privatization: Road to Conflict?”, 6-21, http://www.space4peace.org/articles/road_to_conflict.htm) Three major issues come immediately to mind concerning space privatization . Space as an environment, space law, and profit in space. We've all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100 ,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m. p. h. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close . Some space writers have predicted that the ISS will one day be destroyed by debris. As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space. The time as certainly come for a global discussion about how we treat the sensitive environment called space before it is too late. The taxpayers, especially in the U. S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space . Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier. " Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment. " Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone " where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth. Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more . Privatization really means that profits will be privatized . Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit . Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created .

3. Can’t solve heg, Privatization hurts innovation and leadership Wu 4/15/10 – chairman of the House Science and Technology Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation (David, “Debate: Obama's Space Privatization Plan Is a Costly Mistake”, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/debate-obamas-space-privatization-plan- is-a-costly-mistake/) The Constellation program is not perfect. But putting all of our eggs in a private-sector basket is simply too risky a gamble. If the president's plan is implemented, we would be jeopardizing our nation's lead in space exploration, and we would be jeopardizing our children's future. The space program encourages us to reach for the stars in both our dreams and our actions. It helps drive innovation, and it challenges us to find creative solutions to technological challenges. Moreover, it inspires America's next generation of scientists and engineers to pursue their passions -- something we must have if our nation is to compete in the 21st century global economy. The president's plan to privatize our spaceflight program will hinder our nation's ability to remain at the forefront of human achievement for generations to come. We must reconsider.

DDW 2011

AT: Tax Incentives CP (2/2)

4. Can’t solve MSL – government control is necessary for paying for the mission and making sure it is successful Choi 11 (Charles Q. Choi – journalist for Astrobiology Magazine, 2/10/11, “Red Planet for Sale? How Corporate Sponsors Could Send Humans to Mars,” Space.com, JF) It could be argued that NASA and other government space agencies should spearhead a human mission to Mars instead of corporations because of cost and safety. Astronauts have never set foot on Mars, and like the Apollo missions that sent men to the moon, the mission to Mars would need teams of engineers and other scientists working together over many years, with cost concerns more about staying under a projected budget than earning big profits. Governments also pioneered space travel due to the risky and untested aspects of venturing into such territory. Only after pushing boundaries to make voyages into space safer, more routine and less expensive, could business go where they once feared to tread. "I think it likely most people would find it difficult to conceive there wouldn't be any government involvement in such a mission," said space-law expert Timothy Nelson at New York-based law firm Skadden. "The possession of a rocket alone would probably trip you up on the military regulations that govern the ownership of missile technology in the United States. Not to sound too cynical, but space rockets were built as a byproduct of the arms race." There is no ban on putting ads on the sides of spacecraft or for licensing TV broadcast rights on such missions in the existing law regarding outer space, Nelson added. "The question becomes, economically, whether you can generate enough license fee revenue to pay for what you're trying to do," he said.

5. It links to politics, too contreversial Andy Pasztor, correspondent to the Wall Street Journal, January 24th, 2010, “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html | AK The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.

DDW 2011

AT: Prizes CP (1/3)

1. Perm do both – fund the Mars Science Laboratory and ten ten-million dollar prizes for the development of colonization technology

2. Can’t solve MSL – government control is necessary for paying for the mission and making sure it is successful Choi 11 (Charles Q. Choi – journalist for Astrobiology Magazine, 2/10/11, “Red Planet for Sale? How Corporate Sponsors Could Send Humans to Mars,” Space.com, JF) It could be argued that NASA and other government space agencies should spearhead a human mission to Mars instead of corporations because of cost and safety. Astronauts have never set foot on Mars, and like the Apollo missions that sent men to the moon, the mission to Mars would need teams of engineers and other scientists working together over many years, with cost concerns more about staying under a projected budget than earning big profits. Governments also pioneered space travel due to the risky and untested aspects of venturing into such territory. Only after pushing boundaries to make voyages into space safer, more routine and less expensive, could business go where they once feared to tread. "I think it likely most people would find it difficult to conceive there wouldn't be any government involvement in such a mission," said space-law expert Timothy Nelson at New York-based law firm Skadden. "The possession of a rocket alone would probably trip you up on the military regulations that govern the ownership of missile technology in the United States. Not to sound too cynical, but space rockets were built as a byproduct of the arms race." There is no ban on putting ads on the sides of spacecraft or for licensing TV broadcast rights on such missions in the existing law regarding outer space, Nelson added. "The question becomes, economically, whether you can generate enough license fee revenue to pay for what you're trying to do," he said.

3. Perm do the plan then the cp Colonization spurs private sector investment, results in new economic industries and self sustaining opportunities but government investment is key Dinkin September 7, 2004 Sam (columnist) “Colonize the Moon before Mars” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1 mes The Moon offers a near-term self-sufficiency without any technological breakthroughs. The tourism industry can potentially provide a high-end alternative to orbital tourism (see “Space elevator dry run: next stop, the Moon”, The Space Review, this issue). Patrick Collins makes a good case that cheap orbital access can enable a vibrant lunar tourism industry. With a heavy subsidy, the Moon may become a cheaper destination for a long stay than even an orbital hotel. That is, lunar in situ resource utilization can potentially make oxygen, water, and structural materials less expensive on the Moon than in orbit. Since the Moon is a more exotic and varied destination than orbit, it will likely rate a higher level of demand than orbit. Thus a vibrant tourism industry could result in a strong lunar economy that does not need to be subsidized as early as 2030. There could be a faster development to Antarctic level of commerce (13,000 tourists a year) or Alaska level of commerce (population 600,000). There would still need to be imports from Earth, but every nation on Earth has imports, so becoming self-sufficient in all commodities is not a necessary condition for the success of a colony. In addition to tourism, the Moon could export video entertainment to the Earth. Lunar sports might make great television. Lunar trampoline, diving, and gymnastics should be very interesting to watch and would likely bring in ratings higher than similar events on Earth. Lunar dance rates to be extraordinary. A lunar movie studio may also make some great exports to the Earth. The Moon also offers a great spot for astronomical observation. This allows the reclaiming of terrestrial radio frequencies currently used for that purpose. There are also new Earth observation possibilities. 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

DDW 2011

many industries such as terrestrial point-to-point rocket service, orbital tourism, teleoperation, and robotics. AT: Prizes CP (2/3)

4. It links to politics, too contreversial Andy Pasztor, correspondent to the Wall Street Journal, January 24th, 2010, “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html | AK The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.

5. Can’t solve heg, privatization kills hegemony – destroys government credibility Nicastro, 2011, Kelly Nicastro, writer, To infinity, and beyond!, http://theplainsman.com/bookmark/12455094 James D’Amore, Auburn aerospace engineering graduate and engineer at Boeing, has dreamed of traveling into space—and that dream may soon become a reality for the average citizen. “I am truly excited with an abundance of enthusiasm that the commercial sector has decided to begin creating ways for everyday people to get to space,” D’Amore said. Virgin Galactic, a branch of Virgin Atlantic Airways, plans to offer the first space tourist flight by the end of 2012. “With Virgin Galactic leading the charge in this area, I see that ticket I’ve been waiting for as a child finally turning into a reality,” D’Amore said. However, there are some disadvantages to commercial space flight. For example, if Virgin Galactic’s promise to fulfill dreams of commercial space travel becomes a reality, it may become less important for NASA to develop new ways to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station. D’Amore said as a result of the commercial space industry growing and establishing itself, President Obama has canceled the funding of NASA’s Constellation program designed to expand the space exploration frontier by working to take astronauts back to the moon and to Mars and beyond. “While I understand the reasoning behind this move, I think it is lacking in thought from many points,” D’Amore said. “With the president’s decision to hand over a lot of this power to the private sector, it not only incredibly dims the beacon light of NASA, but it also makes our nation no longer look like the commander of the world’s space industry, as we’ll have no current way of our own travel into space.” Rhonald Jenkins, a retired Emeritus professor of aerospace engineering and president of The Auburn Astronomical Society, said he believes government support is vital in the success of commercial space travel. “I think that the most efficient approach for commercial spaceflight is to have a true partnership between government and industry,” Jenkins said. “By this, I mean that the government would provide significant startup money so that all the risk would not be assumed by the industry.” Jenkins, who has worked as a faculty member in government agencies, primarily NASA, said he believes the reason a large-scale effort in spaceflight must involve government support is because of the tremendous sums of money involved. “Personally, I believe that NASA should stick to what is done so beautifully in the past: unmanned exploration of the solar system and basic research,” Jenkins said. “The partnership would then concentrate on commercial spaceflight.” John Cochran, professor and head of the aerospace engineering department, said he too believes the government should be involved in the production of commercial flights into space. “They will have to satisfy government security requirements,” Cochran said. “A spacecraft could be used as a weapon and do considerable damage on Earth or to orbiting satellites.” So far, approximately 410 people, most from the United States, have committed to the full price of $200,000 to travel into space. The passengers would only be required to have two days of training before the flight takes off. They are invited to many different parties and gatherings around the world to celebrate being a part of the exclusive community who will become the first to commercially travel into space. During the flight, travelers will go about 120 km above the Earth’s surface and will be able to experience zero gravity for five to six minutes. For now, commercial space travel is in the near future, but developments and further research design is underway.

DDW 2011

AT: Prizes CP (3/3)

6. Prizes will never work – chronically underfunded Whittington 11 (Whittington: writer residing in Houston, Texas. He is the author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Houston Chronicle. “Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Projects to Continue Exploration,” http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110512/pl_ac/8463287_newt_gingrich_prefers_space_prizes_over_nasa_projects_to_continue_expl oration_1, JF) There are a couple of problems with Gingrich's space prize idea. First, there is the problem of getting Congress to approve it. Congress has chronically underfunded the Centennial Challenge program, which costs just tens of millions. Asking Congress to appropriate and leave aside as much as $25 billion may be asking too much of the political culture. Second, there is a question of whether even $20 billion and $5 billion are adequate incentives to jump start a private space race to Mars and the Moon respectively. Boasting of certain space entrepreneurs aside, cis-lunar and interplanetary flight are orders of magnitude more challenging than even launching people into low Earth orbit. A $50 million orbital space prize offered by Bigelow Aerospace went with no takers. Current commercial orbital space efforts are dependent on massive government subsidies and promise of lucrative government contracts. Still, one cannot fault Gingrich for not being imaginative. If his ideas on the future of space even spark a debate in campaign 2012, he will have done the United States a great service indeed.

DDW 2011

AT: Security K (1/2)

Perm do both – the alt overcomes the links to the plan

Case outweighs – they haven’t indicted our specific truth claims – the aff prevents a nuclear war which kills everyone – they have to prove a specific scenario for violence

Realism must be used strategically. Rejecting it makes it more dangerous Stefano Guzzini, Assistant Professor at Central European Univ., Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy, 1998, p. 212 Therefore, in a third step, this chapter also claims that it is impossible just to heap realism onto the dustbin of history and start anew . This is a non-option. Although realism as a strictly causal theory has been a disappointment, various realist assumptions are well alive in the minds of many practitioners and observers of international affairs. Although it does not correspond to a theory which helps us to understand a real world with objective laws, it is a world-view which suggests thoughts about it, and which permeates our daily language for making sense of it. Realism has been a rich, albeit very contestable, reservoir of lessons of the past, of metaphors and historical analogies, which, in the hands of its most gifted representatives, have been proposed, at times imposed, and reproduced as guides to a common understanding of international affairs. Realism is alive in the collective memory and self-understanding of our (i.e. Western) foreign policy elite and public, whether educated or not. Hence, we cannot but deal with it. For this reason, forgetting realism is also questionable. Of course, academic observers should not bow to the whims of daily politics. But staying at distance, or being critical, does not mean that they should lose the capacity to understand the languages of those who make significant decisions , not only in government, but also in firms, NGOs, and other institutions. To the contrary, this understanding, as increasingly varied as it may be, is a prerequisite for their very profession. More particularly, it is a prerequisite for opposing the more irresponsible claims made in the name, although not always necessarily in the spirit, of realism.

Strategic political action is key – the alt causes insecurity that re-creates the most violent aspects of your impact claims Ken Booth, Prof. of IR @ Wales, ‘5 [Critical Security Studies and World Politics, p. 22] The best starting point for conceptualizing security lies in the real conditions of insecurity suffered by people and collectivities. Look around. What is immediately striking is that some degree of insecurity, as a life determining condition, is universal. To the extent an individual or group is insecure, to that extent their life choices and chances are taken away ; this is because of the resources and energy they need to invest in seeking safety from domineering threats - whether these are the lack of food for one’s children or organizing to resist a foreign aggressor. The corollary of the relationship between insecurity and a determined life is that a degree of security creates life possibilities. Security might therefore be conceived as synonymous with opening up space in people’s lives. This allows for individual and collective human becoming - the capacity to have some choice about living differently - consistent with the same but different search by others. Two interrelated conclusions follow from this. First, security can be understood as an instrumental value; it frees its possessors to a greater or lesser extent from life-determining constraints and so allows different life possibilities to be explored. Second, security is synonymous simply with survival. One can survive without being secure (the experience of refugees in long-term camps in war-torn parts of the world, for example). Security is therefore more than mere animal survival (basic animal existence). It is survival-plus, the plus being the possibility to explore human becoming, As an instrumental value, security is sought because it frees people(s) to some degree to do other than deal with threats to their human being. The achievement of a level of security - and security is always relative - give s to individuals and groups some time , energy, and scope to chose to be or become, other than merely survival as human biological organisms. Security is an important dimension of the process by which the human species can reinvent itself beyond the merely biological.

DDW 2011

The plan critiques violent forms of hegemonic authority. The alternative abandons hope for political action in the name of critique Gunning 2007 [Jeroen, Lecturer in Int’l Politics @ U of Wales, Government and Opposition 42.3, “A Case for Critical Terrorism Studies?”] The notion of emancipation also crystallizes the need for policy engagement. For, unless a ‘critical’ field seeks to be policy relevant, which, as Cox rightly observes, means combining ‘critical’ and ‘problem-solving’ approaches, it does not fulfil its ‘emancipatory’ potential.94 One of the temptations of ‘critical’ approaches is to remain mired in critique and deconstruction without moving beyond this to reconstruction and policy relevance.Vital as such critiques are, the challenge of a critically constituted field is also to engage with policy makers – and ‘terrorists’ – and work towards the realization of new paradigms, new practices, and a transformation, however modestly, of political structures. That, after all, is the original meaning of the notion of ‘immanent critique’ that has historically underpinned the ‘critical’ project and which, in Booth's words, involves ‘the discovery of the latent potentials in situations on which to build political and social progress’, as opposed to putting forward utopian arguments that are not realizable. Or, as Booth wryly observes, ‘this means building with one's feet firmly on the ground, not constructing castles in the air’ and asking ‘what it means for real people in real places’.96 Rather than simply critiquing the status quo, or noting the problems that come from an un-problematized acceptance of the state, a ‘critical’ approach must, in my view, also concern itself with offering concrete alternatives. Even while historicizing the state and oppositional violence, and challenging the state's role in reproducing oppositional violence, it must wrestle with the fact that ‘the concept of the modern state and sovereignty embodies a coherent response to many of the central problems of political life’, and in particular to ‘the place of violence in political life’. Even while ‘de- essentializing and deconstructing claims about security’, it must concern itself with ‘how security is to be redefined’, and in particular on what theoretical basis.97 Whether because those critical of the status quo are wary of becoming co-opted by the structures of power (and their emphasis on instrumental rationality),98 or because policy makers have, for obvious reasons (including the failure of many ‘critical’ scholars to offer policy relevant advice), a greater affinity with ‘traditional’ scholars, the role of ‘expert adviser’ is more often than not filled by ‘traditional’ scholars.99 The result is that policy makers are insufficiently challenged to question the basis of their policies and develop new policies based on immanent critiques. A notable exception is the readiness of European Union officials to enlist the services of both ‘traditional’ and ‘critical’ scholars to advise the EU on how better to understand processes of radicalization.100 But this would have been impossible if more critically oriented scholars such as Horgan and Silke had not been ready to cooperate with the EU. Striving to be policy relevant does not mean that one has to accept the validity of the term ‘terrorism’ or stop investigating the political interests behind it. Nor does it mean that each piece of research must have policy relevance or that one has to limit one's research to what is relevant for the state, since the ‘critical turn’ implies a move beyond state-centric perspectives. End-users could, and should, thus include both state and non-state actors such as the Foreign Office and the Muslim Council of Britain and Hizb ut-Tahrir; the Northern Ireland Office and the IRA and the Ulster Unionists; the Israeli government and Hamas and Fatah (as long as the overarching principle is to reduce the political use of terror, whoever the perpetrator). It does mean, though, that a critically constituted field must work hard to bring together all the fragmented voices from beyond the ‘terrorism field’, to maximize both the field's rigour and its policy relevance. Whether a critically constituted ‘terrorism studies’ will attract the fragmented voices from outside the field depends largely on how broadly the term ‘critical’ is defined. Those who assume ‘critical’ to mean ‘Critical Theory’ or ‘poststructuralist’ may not feel comfortable identifying with it if they do not themselves subscribe to such a narrowly defined ‘critical’ approach. Rather, to maximize its inclusiveness, I would follow Williams and Krause's approach to ‘critical security studies’, which they define simply as bringing together ‘many perspectives that have been considered outside of the mainstream of the discipline’.101 This means refraining from establishing new criteria of inclusion/exclusion beyond the (normative) expectation that scholars self-reflexively question their conceptual framework, the origins of this framework, their methodologies and dichotomies; and that they historicize both the state and ‘terrorism’, and consider the security and context of all, which implies among other things an attempt at empathy and cross-cultural understanding.102 Anything more normative would limit the ability of such a field to create a genuinely interdisciplinary, non-partisan and innovative framework, and exclude valuable insights borne of a broadly ‘critical’ approach, such as those from conflict resolution studies who, despite working within a ‘traditional’ framework, offer important insights by moving beyond a narrow military understanding of security to a broader understanding of human security and placing violence in its wider social context.103 Thus, a poststructuralist has no greater claim to be part of this ‘critical’ field than a realist who looks beyond the state at the interaction between the

DDW 2011

violent group and their wider social constituency.104

Our impacts are true, there will be war, and space is where it will happen – reason why aff is key to solve Gray 94 (Chris Hables Gray is an Associate Professor of the Cultural Studies of Science and Technology and of Computer Science at the University of Great Falls in Great Falls, Montana. He studies cyborology (cybernetic organisms) and spoke with Wolfgang Sützl about cyborgs and their implications., "There Will Be War!": Future War Fantasies and Militaristic Science Fiction in the 1980s, Science Fiction Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Nov., 1994), pp. 315-336 jstor)JT War itself has entered a crisis because technoscience has made war so horrific that it is a threat to human survival itself and therefore is profoundly nonsensical.4 In response to this danger, a significant group of sf authors have been writing from Robert Heinlein's implicit premise that scientific progress will not end war, although it may displace it in time or space. War, in their view, remains natural-a necessary part of being human and of being intelligent, and, in fact, of life.6 But it is fought out in other times, other dimensions, or, most commonly, on the Moon, on Mars, in the asteroid belt, or beyond the Solar System. Still, the fundamental given is that no matter how distant the future, "There Will be War!"7 So far, sf has proven to be pretty good futurology, or is it a case of self-fulfilling prophesies?

The world functions according to realist principles. Nothing will persuade states to abandon power politics John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2001, http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall01/002025excerpt.htm, accessed 11/14/02 The optimists' claim that security competition and war among the great powers has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact, all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power and are destined to compete for power among themselves for the foreseeable future. Consequently, realism will offer the most powerful explanations of international politics over the next century, and this will be true even if the debates among academic and policy elites are dominated by non-realist theories. In short, the real world remains a realist world. States still fear each other and seek to gain power at each other's expense, because international anarchy—the driving force behind great-power behavior—did not change with the end of the Cold War, and there are few signs that such change is likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still no night watchman standing above them. For sure, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a major shift in the global distribution of power. But it did not give rise to a change in the anarchic structure of the system, and without that kind of profound change, there is no reason to expect the great powers to behave much differently in the new century than they did in previous centuries. Indeed, considerable evidence from the 1990s indicates that power politics has not disappeared from Europe and Northeast Asia, the regions in which there are two or more great powers, as well as possible great powers such as Germany and Japan. There is no question, however, that the competition for power over the past decade has been low-key. Still, there is potential for intense security competition among the great powers that might lead to a major war. Probably the best evidence of that possibility is the fact that the United States maintains about one hundred thousand troops each in Europe and in Northeast Asia for the explicit purpose of keeping the major states in each region at peace.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Privatization CP (1/3) 1) Government control is necessary for paying for the mission and making sure it is successful Choi 11 (Charles Q. Choi – journalist for Astrobiology Magazine, 2/10/11, “Red Planet for Sale? How Corporate Sponsors Could Send Humans to Mars,” Space.com, JF) It could be argued that NASA and other government space agencies should spearhead a human mission to Mars instead of corporations because of cost and safety. Astronauts have never set foot on Mars, and like the Apollo missions that sent men to the moon, the mission to Mars would need teams of engineers and other scientists working together over many years, with cost concerns more about staying under a projected budget than earning big profits. Governments also pioneered space travel due to the risky and untested aspects of venturing into such territory. Only after pushing boundaries to make voyages into space safer, more routine and less expensive, could business go where they once feared to tread. "I think it likely most people would find it difficult to conceive there wouldn't be any government involvement in such a mission," said space-law expert Timothy Nelson at New York-based law firm Skadden. "The possession of a rocket alone would probably trip you up on the military regulations that govern the ownership of missile technology in the United States. Not to sound too cynical, but space rockets were built as a byproduct of the arms race." There is no ban on putting ads on the sides of spacecraft or for licensing TV broadcast rights on such missions in the existing law regarding outer space, Nelson added. "The question becomes, economically, whether you can generate enough license fee revenue to pay for what you're trying to do," he said.

2) Counterplan fails—loses talent and 20,000 jobs in Florida alone and hands space leadership to China and Russia. Fox News, March 9, 10. Obama's New Mission for NASA Sets Off Intense Criticism http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/09/obamas-new-mission-nasa-sets-intense-criticism /But Obama's plan also is drawing fierce criticism, especially in Florida where some 20,000 jobs alone would be lost if the space shuttle program shuts down at the end of this year. Obama plans to visit Florida on April 15 to talk up his space vision. Taxpayers have already spent $9 billion over five years developing the program. Critics of the presidents' plan claim he has no vision for space travel, no firm goals. "If we don't have goals, we're just going to be adrift," said Sen. George Lemieux, R-Fla. "And what I'm afraid of is we're going to lose all of these great scientists that work in Florida and other states around the country and we're going to give up our preeminence in space to the Chinese and the Russians. Shame on us if we do that."

3) Perm: Do Both

4) The private sector is politically controversial – bipartisan opposition Andy Pasztor, correspondent to the Wall Street Journal, January 24th, 2010, “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html | AK The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Privatization CP (2/3) 5) Private sector empirically fails -- Lockheed Martin proves Butler 2011(Amy, writer for aviation weekly, 2011, http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/jsp_includes/articlePrint.jsp? headLine=Lockheed%20Martin%20Space%20Sector%20Hits%20Rough %20Patch&storyID=news/awst/2011/06/20/AW_06_20_2011_p46-336550.xml) Lockheed Martin Space Systems’ troubles have deepened with its agreement to forfeit $15 million for botching delivery to orbit of a new U.S. Air Force satellite. The mishap with the Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) jam-proof communications satellite was the latest in a string of high-profile performance issues for Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon’s top contractor. The fee withholding occurred just more than one year after Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he was holding back more than $600 million of the award fee from Lockheed Martin owing to poor performance on the Joint Strike Fighter development. Also withheld last year, by Missile Defense Agency Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, were production and acceptance of the company’s Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) interceptor due to a single faulty part. Though the issue has been fixed and production commenced, Thaad deliveries were delayed to the Army by about one year, according to the Missile Defense Agency. Meanwhile, the company’s space systems division is also looking to cut its ranks by 1,200 employees. “In today’s economic environment, we have two choices: make painful decisions now or pay a greater price down the road,” says JoAnne Maguire, executive vice president of the space sector. Lockheed Martin is targeting middle management, though all functions are being assessed for reductions, says company spokesman Chip Manor. The staff cut accounts for roughly 7.5% of the division’s workforce and comes on top of the loss of about 150 executives, who opted to leave last year through a voluntary separation program. Martin's X-33 design was chosen to replace the space shuttle in 1996. Before it was canceled in 2001 this program cost the government $912 million and Lockheed Martin $357 million. Of the smaller failures, there was Rotary Rocket in California, which promised to revolutionize space travel with a combination helicopter and rocket and closed down in 2001. In 1997, Texas banker Andrew Beal announced that his firm, Beal Aerospace, was going to build a new large rocket. He shut it down in 2000.

6) Privatization kills hegemony – destroys government credibility Nicastro, 2011, Kelly Nicastro, writer, To infinity, and beyond!, http://theplainsman.com/bookmark/12455094 James D’Amore, Auburn aerospace engineering graduate and engineer at Boeing, has dreamed of traveling into space—and that dream may soon become a reality for the average citizen. “I am truly excited with an abundance of enthusiasm that the commercial sector has decided to begin creating ways for everyday people to get to space,” D’Amore said. Virgin Galactic, a branch of Virgin Atlantic Airways, plans to offer the first space tourist flight by the end of 2012. “With Virgin Galactic leading the charge in this area, I see that ticket I’ve been waiting for as a child finally turning into a reality,” D’Amore said. However, there are some disadvantages to commercial space flight. For example, if Virgin Galactic’s promise to fulfill dreams of commercial space travel becomes a reality, it may become less important for NASA to develop new ways to take astronauts to and from the International Space Station. D’Amore said as a result of the commercial space industry growing and establishing itself, President Obama has canceled the funding of NASA’s Constellation program designed to expand the space exploration frontier by working to take astronauts back to the moon and to Mars and beyond. “While I understand the reasoning behind this move, I think it is lacking in thought from many points,” D’Amore said. “With the president’s decision to hand over a lot of this power to the private sector, it not only incredibly dims the beacon light of NASA, but it also makes our nation no longer look like the commander of the world’s space industry, as we’ll have no current way of our own travel into space.” Rhonald Jenkins, a retired Emeritus professor of aerospace engineering and president of The Auburn Astronomical Society, said he believes government support is vital in the success of commercial space travel. “I think that the most efficient approach for commercial spaceflight is to have a true partnership between government and industry,” Jenkins said. “By this, I mean that the government would provide significant startup money so that all the risk would not be assumed by the industry.” Jenkins, who has worked as a faculty member in government agencies, primarily NASA, said he believes the reason a large-scale effort in spaceflight must involve government support is because of the tremendous sums of money involved. “Personally, I believe that NASA should stick to what is done so beautifully in the past: unmanned exploration of the solar system and basic research,” Jenkins said. “The partnership would then concentrate on commercial spaceflight.” John Cochran, professor and head of the aerospace engineering department, said he too believes the government should be involved in the production of commercial flights into space. “They will have to satisfy government security requirements,” Cochran said. “A spacecraft could be used as a weapon and do considerable damage on Earth or to orbiting satellites.” So far, approximately 410 people, most from the United States, have committed

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Privatization CP (3/3) to the full price of $200,000 to travel into space. The passengers would only be required to have two days of training before the flight takes off. They are invited to many different parties and gatherings around the world to celebrate being a part of the exclusive community who will become the first to commercially travel into space. During the flight, travelers will go about 120 km above the Earth’s surface and will be able to experience zero gravity for five to six minutes. For now, commercial space travel is in the near future, but developments and further research design is underway. commercial crew-delivery strategy

7) Perm: Do the cp and then the plan

8) There is no private sector in space exploration. Heiser, 2009, James Heiser, journalist, The Private Sector and the future of Space Exploration, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/space/1706 Rocket Booster: Let Private Sector help NASA”) keeps a free-market focus on the future of American space exploration: “After leading the way in the human exploration of space for nearly 50 years, the future of U.S. manned space flight is in question. The space shuttle makes its last flight next year. After that, NASA must rely on the Russians to put astronauts in space. Unless the country looks to the private sector.” With delays in the manned space program that have pushed the development of NASA’s replacement for the shuttle to 2015, the future of the space agency is at a crossroads. One possible direction that could be chosen leads toward the private sector: “So with manned space flight going on hiatus next year and some saying NASA needs a big infusion of cash to continue manned space flight, another option is emerging: NASA could use commercial ventures like SpaceX to deliver cargo and people to the space station.”SpaceX is one of several private ventures (including Mohave Aerospace Ventures and Virgin Galactic) which have been launched in recent years to develop launch vehicles for satellites, cargo, and human crews. These private companies have already made significant advances toward a non-governmental option for manned space flight, most notably SpaceX’s successful flight of a multistage rocket, and deployment of a satellite to orbit. The company’s “Dragon” module (which is projected to be capable of carrying seven passengers) is scheduled for testing, including a fly-by of the International Space Station, this year.Wired.com notes that “NASA contractor and aerospace giant Lockheed Martin” is less than excited about such private efforts: “Lockheed Martin ... says there’s too much risk associated with commercial space flight to make that a viable alternative to a government program. Aviation Week reports that Lockheed Martin believes the commercial space programs could cost a lot more — in terms of time, money and safety — than a NASA program. ‘We know how difficult it is to transport to the station and we don’t want people to cut corners, and downstream having NASA pay the penalty of the time and cost of doing this,’ John Stevens, of Lockheed Martin’s human spaceflight division, told Aviation Week.” The nature of the market, of course, is that if such commercial space programs are not viable, they will not survive. For a public increasingly frustrated watching a space bureaucracy that seems dedicated to going nowhere and spending lots of money in the process, such private ventures are a refreshing alternative. Open and fair competition for government and corporate contracts offer possibilities to these new companies that may allow them take the next steps out into the new frontier of the solar system. New frontiers offer new possibilities for human freedom, and these new companies may help to open those new frontiers.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Tax Incentives CP (1/2) 1) The government must come in first before private companies. Mike Wall, SPACE.com Senior Writer, 30 October 2010, “Want to Mine the Solar System? Start With the Moon”, http://www.space.com/9430-solar-system-start-moon.html However, government leadership and investment will likely be needed to get these businesses off the ground, several panelists said. Some people in the aerospace industry are skeptical about the feasibility of extraterrestrial mining operations, Spudis said. To get them onboard, government should demonstrate the necessary technologies and know-how. "Let the government lead the way, and let the private sector follow," Spudis said. Government could also prime the pump for private industry, some panelists said, spurring demand for rocket fuel sold from orbiting filling stations. "An appropriate government investment can catalyze it," Greason said. "Government shows the initial demand and the private sector figures out how to provide the supply." The panel agreed about the transformative potential of extraterrestrial resource extraction.

2) Counterplan fails—loses talent and 20,000 jobs in Florida alone and hands space leadership to China and Russia. Fox News, March 9, 10. Obama's New Mission for NASA Sets Off Intense Criticism http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/09/obamas-new-mission-nasa-sets-intense-criticism/ But Obama's plan also is drawing fierce criticism, especially in Florida where some 20,000 jobs alone would be lost if the space shuttle program shuts down at the end of this year. Obama plans to visit Florida on April 15 to talk up his space vision. Taxpayers have already spent $9 billion over five years developing the program. Critics of the presidents' plan claim he has no vision for space travel, no firm goals. "If we don't have goals, we're just going to be adrift," said Sen. George Lemieux, R-Fla. "And what I'm afraid of is we're going to lose all of these great scientists that work in Florida and other states around the country and we're going to give up our preeminence in space to the Chinese and the Russians. Shame on us if we do that."

3) Privatization of the aerospace industry is costly in terms of the economy and hegemony David Wu, Chairman of the House of Science and Technology, April 15, 2010, “Obama’s Space Privatization Plan is a Costly Mistake”, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/debate-obamas-space-privatization-plan-is-a-costly-mistake/ In testimony before the House Science and Technology Committee on Feb. 25, NASA administrator Charles Bolden admitted that his agency had not conducted a single market survey on the potential costs of privatizing space exploration. Instead, the administration relied solely on information provided by the aerospace industry when formulating its plans for privatizing the human spaceflight program. While these estimates may indeed be accurate, we cannot know for sure what the potential costs associated with this dramatic move will be without independent, unbiased estimates. Simply put, the president's vision lacks clearly defined objectives and metrics for measuring success. The administration cannot adequately explain where the space program's shifted focus will lead. And the president's justification for privatizing human space exploration relies on the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. The American people deserve better. The Constellation program is not perfect. But putting all of our eggs in a private-sector basket is simply too risky a gamble. If the president's plan is implemented, we would be jeopardizing our nation's lead in space exploration, and we would be jeopardizing our children's future. The space program encourages us to reach for the stars in both our dreams and our actions. It helps drive innovation, and it challenges us to find creative solutions to technological challenges. Moreover, it inspires America's next generation of scientists and engineers to pursue their passions -- something we must have if our nation is to compete in the 21st century global economy. The president's plan to privatize our spaceflight program will hinder our nation's ability to remain at the forefront of human achievement for generations to come. We must reconsider.

4) Perm: Do Both

5) The private sector is politically controversial – bipartisan opposition Andy Pasztor, correspondent to the Wall Street Journal, January 24th, 2010, “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work”, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html | AK The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal

DDW 2011

faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, 2AC AT: Tax Incentives CP (2/2) expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan. 6) Private companies banned from ISS—can’t access space Space Travel and Tourism, staff writers of Space Travel Exploration and Tourism, Apr 25, 2011, (No ISS docking permission for SpaceX unless safety proven Says Roscosmos, http://www.space- travel.com/reports/No_ISS_docking_permission_for_SpaceX_unless_safety_proven_Says_Roscosmos_999.html) Russia will not permit the first U.S. commercial spacecraft to dock with the International SpaceStation (ISS) unless its safety is fully tested, a high-ranking official with Russia's space agencyRoscosmos said on Friday. "We will not issue docking permission unless the necessary level of reliability and safety [of the spacecraft] is proven. So far we have no proof that those spacecraft duly comply with the accepted norms of spaceflight safety," said Alexei Krasov, who heads the manned spaceflight department of Roscosmos. The statement comes in the wake of media reports that the spacecraft's designer, U.S. company SpaceX, requested NASA to authorize the docking in December SpaceX aims to put man on Mars in 10-20 years NEW YORK, April 23, 2011 (AFP) - Private US company SpaceX hopes to put an astronaut on Mars within 10 to 20 years, the head of the firm said. "We'll probably put a first man in space in about three years," Elon Musk told the Wall Street Journal Saturday. "We're going all the way to Mars, I think... best case 10 years, worst case 15 to 20 years." SpaceX is one of the two leading private space companies in the UnitedStates and has won $75 million from the US space agency NASA to help its pursuit of developing a spacecraft to replace the space shuttle. The California-based company last year completed its first successful test of an unmanned space capsule into orbit and back. "Our goal is to facilitate the transfer of people and cargo to other planets, and then it will be up to people if they want to go," said Musk, who also runs the Tesla company which develops electric cars. The US space shuttle program is winding down later this year with final flights of Endeavour set for next week and Atlantis in June, ending an era of American spaceflight that began with the first space shuttle mission in 1981. When the shuttle program ends, the United States hopes private industry will be able to fill the gap by creating the next generation of spacecraft to transport astronauts into space. "A future where humanity is out there exploring stars is an incredibly exciting future, and inspiring, and that's what we're trying to help make happen," Musk added in the interview. Earlier this month SpaceX unveiled what Musk has called the world's most powerful rocket, the Falcon Heavy, which will have its first demonstration flight at the end of 2012. The launcher is designed to lift into orbit satellites or spacecraft weighing more than 53 metric tons, or 117,000 pounds - more than twice the capacity of the Space Shuttle or Delta IV Heavy launcher. SpaceX, short for Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, is one of two private companies that NASA has contracted to transport cargo to the International Space Station. Musk, a South African who made his fortune in the Internet, created SpaceX in 2002

7) Perm: Do the cp and then the plan

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Delay CP

1) With more delays to Curiosity, they could scrap the program The Week ( online news publisher) 6/9/11 “Is NASA’s $2.5 billion Mars rover doomed” http://theweek.com/article/index/216156/is-nasas-25-billion-mars-rover-doomed RM

Though the (repeatedly delayed) Curiosity is nearly ready to launch in November or December, two key software issues remain and NASA expects it will have to use a $22 million reserve fund to get things done in time. Development costs have already jumped from $969 million to $1.8 billion, with total mission costs of $2.5 billion."Because Earth and Mars only line up once every two years, NASA would have to wait until 2013" to try again, says says Grossman at Wired. That delay would cost another $570 million. If the agency failed to line up the extra funding, the project may have to be scrapped. NASA's project managers admit they are cutting it close, but insist they'll finish in time. "Still, we’re uncomfortably reminded of a nervous joke among Mars exploration scientists," says Grossman: "On time, on budget, on Mars: Pick two."

2) Space must be considered as a vital national interest Logsdon, John M. (Director of the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs in Washington, DC) 2003 “Astropolitics” http://www2.gwu.edu/~spi/assets/docs/space_as_a_national_interest.pdf

In its November 2002 report, the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry concluded that “nations aspiring to global leadership in the 21st century must be space faring.” The Commission called upon the United States to create a “space imperative.” Leaving aside for the moment a definition of what such a “space imperative” might contain, the Commission’s conclusion about the importance of space capabilities to U.S. national interests is only the latest in a string of such declarations. A few years ago, the Long Range Plan of the U.S. Space Command suggested that “space is emerging as a military and economic center of gravity for our information-dependent forces, businesses, and society.” The Commander of the U.S. Space Command at the time, General Howell Estes, went further, suggesting that space “will be considered a vital national interest – on par with how we value oil today . . ..” The suggestion that access to space and its uses should be a high priority U.S. concern was echoed in the Clinton administration’s December 1999 A National Security Strategy for a New Century, which stated that “we are committed to maintaining U.S. leadership in space. Unimpeded access to and use of space is a vital national interest – essential for protecting U.S. national security, promoting our prosperity and ensuring our well-being.” This view was repeated in the Bush administration’s September 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review, which concluded that “because many activities conducted in space are critical to America’s national security and economic well-being, the ability of the United States to access and use space is a vital national interest.”

3) Now is the key time otherwise survival will be tested due to resource depletion MATTHEW HENDER (THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING) August 2009 “COLONIZATION A PERMANENT HABITAT FOR THE COLONIZATION OF MARS” digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/.../02chapters1-4.pdf MES

It is considered that we should think about it now and plan to be ready to commence colonization in the near future. If the process is left for the distant future it is possible that the resources to perform such a feat will no longer exist, absorbed for the purpose of survival by a swelling population. If population levels exceed a „critical mass ‟ or resource use continues at unsustainable levels then there could conceivably become a time when the opportunity has passed us by. If we wish to open up this new frontier we will need to do so whilst the resources are available.

4) Now is key because of the dust storms of 2013

5) Perm: Do both

6) Perm: Do the CP and then the Plan

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Colonize Venus CP

1) Colonization of Venus is out of the question (laundry list) MATTHEW HENDER (THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING) August 2009 “COLONIZATION A PERMANENT HABITAT FOR THE COLONIZATION OF MARS” digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/.../02chapters1-4.pdf MES

The sulfuric atmosphere of Venus poses many problems to colonization. The upper layer of Venus‟ atmosphere is comprised of a thick layer of sulfuric acid droplets overlaying a dense carbon dioxide layer, contributing to an intense greenhouse effect. The Soviet probe, Venera 13, which landed on Venus in March of 1982, survived in these searing conditions for just 127 minutes. Venus has an average temperature of over 450C, with minimal temperature variation over the length of a day. The average surface pressure is in the order of 92 bars (compared to 1.014 bars on Earth) and its average surface density is approximately 65 kg/m3 (over 50 times that of Earth). Structures built in such an environment would have to be designed for considerably higher loading that for those on Earth (equivalent to that of a building situated almost one thousand metres below sea level) and would need to withstand these loads at much higher temperatures and under extremely corrosive conditions. Furthermore, the extreme temperatures make construction extremely difficult. It is likely that automated construction processes would need to be implemented if a serious construction effort was ever attempted. Such extreme pressures and temperatures would severely limit any outdoor excursions, even with the aid of very elaborate protection. The temperatures are high enough that, on Earth, it would turn sodium, potassium and even zinc to liquid. The temperature of Venus is sufficiently extreme to influence the strength of materials used in construction. Compounding the problems with colonizing Venus, is the fact that it has a day/night cycle almost 250 Earth days, putting massive reliance on failsafe energy sources (i.e. not solar power) for the habitat and making crop growth reliant on artificial lighting.

2) Mars is the best option, temperature, day cycle, water and launch cycle are similar to Earth and much better than Venus MATTHEW HENDER (THE UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE SCHOOL OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING) August 2009 “COLONIZATION A PERMANENT HABITAT FOR THE COLONIZATION OF MARS” digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/.../02chapters1-4.pdf MES

Mars ‟ temperature range, averaging around -60C, is not comfortable but it is survivable. With proper protection (i.e. insulated extra vehicular activity (EVA) suits, heated vehicles, etc.) outdoor exploration and construction is viable, unlike the searing temperature of Venus that hinders a human presence in the construction process. Indoor heating can be provided by utilizing waste heat from energy production (nuclear or fusion power plants) or industrial processes (such as ethylene production, for fuel or a feedstock for plastic manufacture). Average atmospheric pressure is approximately six to ten millibars (0.6 to 1.0 kN/m2), less than 1% that of Earth. Pressurizing a habitat to a suitable pressure would be a simple task; in fact the relatively high internal pressure affords some interesting ingenuity in habitat structural design. As an example, inflatable habitat extensions have been proposed for future manned Mars missions allowing for lighter, more spacious designs. These designs will be discussed in more detail on page 21 in the section on Habitat Design. With Venus effectively ruled out on atmospheric conditions Mars possesses a gravity next closest to that of Earth and significantly higher than that of the Moon. Whilst still being less than that of the Earth this gravity level does have some benefits. Structurally, less material will be required to withstand equal mass as weights, and therefore loading, will be significantly reduced. Accordingly, this will lead to lower resource utilization. However, there are some disadvantages. For example, particles will take longer to settle out of suspension in liquid under lower gravity conditions, having implications on several common processes, including conventional sewerage and water treatment. From a colonization perspective, however, the low Martian gravity does not pose insurmountable technical problems that could impact on habitation. It is expected that the Martian gravity of Mars will pose fewer problems than the lower gravity of our Moon, although the medical effects of Martian gravity are unknown. The effects of, and remedies for, partial gravity are discussed on page 98. Like the Moon, Mars has been proved to have a reasonable amount of water. Photographic evidence suggests that surface channels may once have been active rivers. The example pictured in Figure 1 (taken by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft, 1998, courtesy of Malin Space Science Systems/JPL/NASA), below, has a distinct

DDW 2011

central channel and an oxbow. Water has been detected in the atmosphere in the past, at the very low levels of 210 PPM, and has been detected from orbit at shallow depths in the Martian regolith. As water is present, in ice form, beneath the surface, as permafrost or even in frozen aquifers, water may be easily accessible from many different regions of the surface. The Martian day is almost 25 hours long. Being so similar to that of Earth, there should be no need for crew psychological or physical conditioning. In fact, research indicates that the human biological clock is set to a 25 hour cycle (Higuchi, S. 2002). Furthermore, special consideration in the mission planning process will not be required, such as artificial crop lighting. This is contrary to the very long cycles of Venus (250 days) and the Moon (27 days). Finally, due to planetary alignment there is a launch opportunity to Mars every 26 months with current technology. This is not considered to be an unreasonably long time for a fledgling habitat to rely on consumable stores in the event of self- sustainability failure (or the decision not to rely on self-sustainability in the early stages of habitation). Whilst, at first glance, Mars does appear quite barren, the environmental conditions and in-situ resources warrant Mars as the preferred location for colonization within our solar system, thus, Mars is the focus of investigation in this report.

3) Links to spending and politics just as hard as the plan

4) Perm: Do Both

5) Perm: Do the CP and then the Plan

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Stem CP (1/2)

1. Perm do both

2. Their Pollack 5 evidence just says that regular STEM education needs to be increased and the only reason it is unsuccessful is because there isn’t enough of it, not that it needs to be reformed

3. Can’t solve the IL to heg, it’s specific to funding for NASA specifically and the international perception of it

4. Development of NASA programs is key to education William R. Hawkins (a consultant specializing in international economic and national security issues) “Forfeiting U.S. leadership in space” 3/7/11 http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.8906/pub_detail.asp RM NASA knows, "The core elements to a successful implementation are a space launch system and a multipurpose crew vehicle to serve as our national capability to conduct advanced missions beyond low Earth orbit. Developing this combined system will enable us to reach cislunar space, near-Earth asteroids, Mars, and other celestial bodies." Tragically, no one higher up in Washington, either at the White House or in Congress, has cared enough about the nation's future in space to do anything about funding such a project. As long as there are still satellites that can beam down episodes of "American Idol" to a nation of couch potatoes, who cares about achieving anything more? NASA is one of the few government programs than actually deserves to be called an investment. Its 2012 request of $18 billion is only 0.4 percent of a $3.7 trillion Federal budget. The bailout money given to the AIG insurance company would have funded NASA for a decade. Yet, the technology the space program has generated for society has rewarded taxpayers many times over. And developing new generations of scientific breakthroughs will continue to be a major strategic goal of the program. NASA's role extends beyond the agency's own work. It has served as a stimulus for education and industry. It's 2011 report states, "One of NASA's top strategic goals is to Inspire students to be our future scientists, engineers, explorers, and educators through interactions with NASA’s people, missions, research, and facilities." At a time when the performance of American students in math and science has fallen behind that of most of the world, there needs to be a new push to stimulate the public imagination and to provide rewarding careers for a new generation of innovative thinkers. But with NASA doing less in space, from where is the inspiration to come? Designing more video games? The NASA report raises concerns about how to keep even its current high-skilled workforce employed, noting. "The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2011 is ushering in a tran sition period for the Nation’s human space flight workforce." New programs, such as "development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth’s orbit, including a mission to an asteroid next decade" are supposed to provide some jobs, but not enough. Shifting work to "green technology" and the study of "global warming" will not lead to new adventures in manned space exploration

5. Perm do the plan and then implement an “All STEM for Some” approach

6. No reason why the plan prevents STEM education, if anything it helps because young kids see space exploration as field that they want to go into. Mars is the key catalyst to have interest in the space programs – that’s Stevens in 7

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Stem CP (2/2)

7. Colonization revitalizes American democracy Zubrin 96 (Robert Zubrin, former Chairman of the National Space Society, President of the Mars Society, and author of The Case For Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must, Ad Astra May/June 1996, “The Promise of Mars,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/mars/zubrin-promise.html, JF) 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.

8. Democracy solves nuclear and biological warfare, genocide and environmental destruction Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html // 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. 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.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Space Leadership CP 1) Perm: Do Both The counterplan is just plan plus.

2) Government control is necessary for paying for the mission and making sure it is successful Choi 11 (Charles Q. Choi – journalist for Astrobiology Magazine, 2/10/11, “Red Planet for Sale? How Corporate Sponsors Could Send Humans to Mars,” Space.com, JF) It could be argued that NASA and other government space agencies should spearhead a human mission to Mars instead of corporations because of cost and safety. Astronauts have never set foot on Mars, and like the Apollo missions that sent men to the moon, the mission to Mars would need teams of engineers and other scientists working together over many years, with cost concerns more about staying under a projected budget than earning big profits. Governments also pioneered space travel due to the risky and untested aspects of venturing into such territory. Only after pushing boundaries to make voyages into space safer, more routine and less expensive, could business go where they once feared to tread. "I think it likely most people would find it difficult to conceive there wouldn't be any government involvement in such a mission," said space-law expert Timothy Nelson at New York-based law firm Skadden. "The possession of a rocket alone would probably trip you up on the military regulations that govern the ownership of missile technology in the United States. Not to sound too cynical, but space rockets were built as a byproduct of the arms race." There is no ban on putting ads on the sides of spacecraft or for licensing TV broadcast rights on such missions in the existing law regarding outer space, Nelson added. "The question becomes, economically, whether you can generate enough license fee revenue to pay for what you're trying to do," he said.

3) Colonization spurs investment, results in new economic industries and self sustaining opportunities but government investment is key Dinkin September 7, 2004 Sam (columnist) “Colonize the Moon before Mars” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1 mes The Moon offers a near-term self-sufficiency without any technological breakthroughs. The tourism industry can potentially provide a high-end alternative to orbital tourism (see “Space elevator dry run: next stop, the Moon”, The Space Review, this issue). Patrick Collins makes a good case that cheap orbital access can enable a vibrant lunar tourism industry. With a heavy subsidy, the Moon may become a cheaper destination for a long stay than even an orbital hotel. That is, lunar in situ resource utilization can potentially make oxygen, water, and structural materials less expensive on the Moon than in orbit. Since the Moon is a more exotic and varied destination than orbit, it will likely rate a higher level of demand than orbit. Thus a vibrant tourism industry could result in a strong lunar economy that does not need to be subsidized as early as 2030. There could be a faster development to Antarctic level of commerce (13,000 tourists a year) or Alaska level of commerce (population 600,000). There would still need to be imports from Earth, but every nation on Earth has imports, so becoming self-sufficient in all commodities is not a necessary condition for the success of a colony. In addition to tourism, the Moon could export video entertainment to the Earth. Lunar sports might make great television. Lunar trampoline, diving, and gymnastics should be very interesting to watch and would likely bring in ratings higher than similar events on Earth. Lunar dance rates to be extraordinary. A lunar movie studio may also make some great exports to the Earth. The Moon also offers a great spot for astronomical observation. This allows the reclaiming of terrestrial radio frequencies currently used for that purpose. There are also new Earth observation possibilities. 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.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Spending DA

1) If the Mars Rover Curiosity is not launched this November the launch will have to be delayed for another 26 months, costing an additional $570 million. Moskowitz, Clara. SPACE.com, Senior Writer. June 8th, 2011. SPACE.com. “NASA’s Next Mars Rover Still Faces Big Challenges, Audit Reveals.” Because the orbits of Earth and Mars don't align often, NASA is trying furiously to meet the 2011 launch window, which opens Nov. 25. The rover team currently has a margin of roughly 20 extra days built into the schedule in case things take longer than planned to finish up before launch. "We do feel very confident right now that given the work yet to go and the schedule that we have, that that amount of margin is sufficient," Lavery said. "We should be all set for a successful launch on the 25th of November." [Video: How Mars Rover Curiosity Will Land] But if Curiosity doesn't launch in that window, the agency will have to wait 26 months — more than two years — for another launch window. Such a delay would require a mission redesign costing another $570 million, the Inspector General's report found.

2) We solve the terminal impact – not only does space exploration harbor international peace, but every dollar we spend we receive eight in economic benefit G. Scott Hubbard, (professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics at Stanford University and former director of the NASA Ames Research Center) 1/11/08 “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum” http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/ MES The debate about the relative merits of exploring space with humans and robots is as old as the space program itself. Werner Von Braun, a moving force behind the Apollo Program that sent humans to the moon and the architect of the mighty Saturn V rocket, believed passionately in the value of human exploration — especially when it meant beating the hated Soviet Empire. James Van Allen, discoverer of the magnetic fields that bear his name, was equally ardent and vocal about the value of robotic exploration. There are five arguments that are advanced in any discussion about the utility of space exploration and the roles of humans and robots. Those arguments, in roughly ascending order of advocate support, are the following: 1. Space exploration will eventually allow us to establish a human civilization on another world (e.g., Mars) as a hedge against the type of catastrophe that wiped out the dinosaurs. 2. We explore space and create important new technologies to advance our economy. It is true that, for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit. Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering. 3. Space exploration in an international context offers a peaceful cooperative venue that is a valuable alternative to nation state hostilities. One can look at the International Space Station and marvel that the former Soviet Union and the U.S. are now active partners. International cooperation is also a way to reduce costs. 4. National prestige requires that the U.S. continue to be a leader in space, and that includes human exploration. History tells us that great civilizations dare not abandon exploration. 5. Exploration of space will provide humanity with an answer to the most fundamental questions: Are we alone? Are there other forms of life beside those on Earth? It is these last two arguments that are the most compelling to me. It is challenging to make the case that humans are necessary to the type of scientific exploration that may bring evidence of life on another world. There are strong arguments on both sides. Personally, I think humans will be better at unstructured environment exploration than any existing robot for a very long time. There are those who say that exploration with humans is simply too expensive for the return we receive. However, I cannot imagine any U.S. President announcing that we are abandoning space exploration with humans and leaving it to the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Japanese or any other group. I can imagine the U.S. engaging in much more expansive international cooperation. Humans will be exploring space. The challenge is to be sure that they accomplish meaningful exploration.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Spending DA (1/3) 3) Space Exploration isn’t a drain on the economy but key to it. Joan Vernikos, (a member of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy and former director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division) 1/11/08 “Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost? A Freakonomics Quorum” http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is- space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/ MES At what cost? Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted. Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self- supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P. “What’s the hurry?” is a legitimate question. As the late Senator William Proxmire said many years ago, “Mars isn’t going anywhere.” Why should we commit hard-pressed budgets for space exploration when there will always be competing interests? However, as Mercury, Gemini and Apollo did 50 years ago, our future scientific and technological leadership depends on exciting creativity in the younger generations. Nothing does this better than manned space exploration. There is now a national urgency to direct the creative interests of our youth towards careers in science and engineering. We need to keep the flame of manned space exploration alive as China, Russia, India, and other countries forge ahead with substantial investments that challenge U.S. leadership in space.

4) We hold the internal link to your impacts – Developing mars is key to the economy Haque, Shirin (Ph.D Astronomer of the University of the West Indes) Journal of Cosmology: “Why we must go to Mars” January 2011 http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars151.html At the economical level, both the public and the private sector might be beneficiated with a manned mission to Mars, especially if they work in synergy. Recent studies indicate a large financial return to companies that have successfully commercialized NASA life sciences spin-off products. Thousands of spin-off products have resulted from the application of space-derived technology in fields as human resource development, environmental monitoring, natural resource management, public health, medicine and public safety, telecommunications, computers and information technology, industrial productivity and manufacturing technology and transportation. Besides, the space industry has already a significant contribution on the economy of some countries and with the advent of the human exploration of Mars, it will increase its impact on the economy of many nations. This will include positive impact on the economy of developing countries since it open new opportunities for investments. Furthermore, the benefits of close cooperation among countries in space exploration have been made clear on numerous missions. International crews have been aboard the Space Shuttle many times, and the Mir Space Station has hosted space explorers from many nations. After the realization of the International Space Station, human exploratory missions to Mars are widely considered as the next step of peaceful cooperation in space on a global scale. Successful international partnerships to the human exploration of the red planet will benefit each country involved since these cooperation approaches enrich the scientific and technological character of the initiative, allow access to foreign facilities and capabilities, help share the cost and promote national scientific, technological and industrial capabilities. For these reasons, it has the unique potential to be a unifying endeavor that can provide the entire world with the opportunity for mutual achievement and security through shared commitment to a challenging enterprise. To conclude, the human exploration of the red planet will significantly benefit all the humanity since it has the potential to improve human`s quality of life, provide economic returns to companies, stimulate the economy of many nations including developing countries and promote international collaboration.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Spending DA (2/3) 5) Martian Minerals found through colonization solve economic troubles Rhawn, Joseph (Ph.D Psychiatry) “Colonizing the red planet: A how-to guide” December 2010 http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars110.html Article II of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which was ratified by the United States and 61 other countries explicitly states that "Outer Space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." This treaty, however, says nothing about personal or corporate claims of private ownership or individual or corporate rights to extract and mine minerals and ores. Nor is the planet Mars explicitly mentioned in the 1967 Treaty. 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.

6) Mars mission fosters jobs Robert Braun (Chief NASA Technologist) 4/20/11 “Investments in our future: Exploring space through innovation and technology” http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/914 RM “I don’t remember Apollo at all,” confesses, Robert Braun, NASA’s chief technologist. “I feel really bad about it.” Nevertheless, he has spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the mission to the moon, and its significance not just for space exploration, but for the nation’s innovative edge and economy. Braun wonders, “What is my generation’s space race?.” Braun offers not one but a handful of “game-changing civil space possibilities” that he feels certain could be accomplished in his lifetime. These include an asteroid defense system, forecasting major storms in time to move entire populations out of harm’s way; and finding life in space. Braun notes that many others embrace these “lofty goals,” but that NASA has been hampered in approaching them by a lack of investment in technology. When Braun first graduated from Penn State decades ago, he worked on “human to Mars” programs. There were huge technological obstacles then that persist today. Says Braun, “We need a series of technological advances crossing multiple disciplines to make a human Mars mission feasible.” The recently minted NASA Space Technology Program (STP), under Braun’s wing, intends to seed R&D ventures -- whether in early stage innovation, experimentation or pilot demonstrations -- that may ultimately solve the kinds of problems hampering human space exploration. The program will also yield numerous other benefits, Braun predicts, in many other areas of science and engineering. These investments in disruptive technologies will pay off in turn by creating spinoff high tech industries, spurring new jobs, economic growth and global competitiveness.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Spending DA (3/3) 7) Plan creates jobs – empirically proven Paul McDougall (editor at large for informationweek) 2/3/10 “NASA plans manned missions to mars” http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/leadership/222600942 RM "The president's proposed NASA budget begins the death march for the future of US human space flight," said Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala), in a statement. Shelby also characterized private space contractors as "hobbyists" that lack a track record when it comes to successfully and safely launching space vehicles carrying humans. Resuming trips to the moon, which astronauts have not visited since Apollo 17's trip there in 1972, was a key part of former president George W. Bush's plan for increased space exploration. Constellation was expected to create thousands of jobs in various parts of the country, and Congressional members in states affected by the cuts vowed to fight to keep the plan intact. "Based on initial reports about the administration's plan for NASA, they are replacing lost shuttle jobs in Florida too slowly, risking U.S. leadership in space to China and Russia, and relying too heavily on unproven commercial companies," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla)

8) Investments in the space program create jobs Frank Mace (Frank Mace is an online columnist with the United States section of the Harvard Political Review) 5/7/11 “In defense of the Obama space exploration plan” http://hpronline.org/united-states/in-defense-of-the-obama-space-exploration-plan/ RM When the shuttle Endeavour lifts off from central Florida later this month, it will mark the near conclusion of the space shuttle era. Under the command of Mark Kelly, husband of recently wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Endeavour will embark on the second-to-last shuttle mission. It is therefore a ripe time to examine what’s next for NASA. Last April, President Obama unveiled a comprehensive overhaul of NASA’s future and cancelled much of the Bush-era Constellation plan to return to the moon. Obama’s plan looked to add $6 billion to the NASA budget over the next five years, renew the focus on scientific discovery, lengthen the lifespan of the International Space Station, and most importantly, dramatically increase the role of private contractors in NASA missions. Obama rightly prioritized jobs, science, and national inspiration with his new direction for NASA. This plan drew immediate criticism from, among others, Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong, Apollo 13 Commander James Lovell, and Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan, who jointly wrote in a letter to President Obama: “It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded. For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one second or even third rate stature.” The three commanders, however, overvalue pure nationalism at the expense of the NASA roles in job creation, science, and national inspiration. In today’s economic climate, our first consideration should be jobs. The Obama Plan would add 2,500 more jobs to the American economy than the Bush-era plan. Additionally, the increased private sector involvement in the space program could generate upwards of 10,000 jobs. Conservative critics of Obama’s plan should take note of this increased reliance on the private sector for innovation—after all, a belief in the efficiency of the private sector is a central Republican tenet. Secondly, Obama’s attention to scientific discoveries with tangible benefits is apt. He endorses exploration of the solar system by robots and a new telescope to succeed Hubble and calls for fresh climate and environmental studies. An extended commitment to the International Space Station further displays Obama’s respect for the scientific discoveries being made onboard. His vision of the role for space exploration is based on science, not nationalism. Finally, Obama’s plan deftly prioritizes national inspiration over simple nationalism. He argues “exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation—sparking passions and launching careers . . . because, ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future and we are ceding that essential element of the American character.” And this plan is not lacking in inspiration capability. It calls for innovation to build a rocket at least two years earlier than under the Constellation program. This point alone negates the three astronauts’ criticism that many years will be “required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.” Crewed missions into deep space by 2025. Crewed missions to asteroids. Crewed missions into Mars orbit by the 2030s. A landing on mars to follow. This plan will truly continue NASA’s history of inspiring the people, especially the youth, of the United States. Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernon assert that the Obama plan will sacrifice American leadership in space. Worthy recipients of the status of national hero, these astronauts nonetheless hail from the space race era. Obama, however, points out that “what was once a global competition has long since become a global collaboration.” I agree with the president that the ambitious nature of his plan will do nothing but

DDW 2011

“ensure that our leadership in space is even stronger in this new century than it was in the last” as well as “strengthen America’s leadership here on earth.” Obama’s space exploration plan will create jobs, advance science, and inspire a nation, and it will do so not by sacrificing American dominance in space, but by extending that dominance into new areas of research and exploration.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Debt Ceiling (Politics DA) [1/3] 1) Debt Ceiling won’t pass- Too much inexperience in Congress means they can’t reach the deadline Taylor, Andrew Taylor writes for the Assoicated Press and has covered Congress for two decades, July 1, 2011“Passing major debt deal by Aug. 2 seems doubtful”, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iB9psA98p-n2Tl1--oZ6m0l4Vfjg? docId=044f39ddbdca4fc9af6c09e09d7f0ca7, Date accessed July 1, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — It may be even more difficult than it appears for Congress to reach a broad deal to raise America's borrowing limit and slash spending by Aug. 2. Maybe all but impossible. Even if quarreling lawmakers can somehow agree this month, it is doubtful that Congress can write it up in binding fashion and pass it by one month from Saturday. That's when, the Treasury Department declared anew on Friday, the government will start running short of money to pay the nation's bills. Congress could end up having to vote at least twice on the political poisonous issue of raising the debt ceiling, now $14.3 trillion, to avoid a first-ever government default. The first vote would be on an interim raise, possibly in the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars, to give Congress time to wrap up a grand bargain allowing the government to go trillions of dollars deeper into debt in exchange for spending cuts and possibly higher taxes totaling an equal amount." It will take time, and that is a bit troublesome," says Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who represented Senate Republicans in budget talks led by Vice President Joe Biden. "Nobody wants this to be just parachuted in three days before they vote on it." Veterans of previous budget deals say there's no way President Barack Obama and Congress can meet the Aug. 2 deadline even if a broad overall agreement is reached in the next two weeks. First, it could take weeks more for lawmakers and staff aides to implement that deal negotiated by the president and the two parties' leaders. Then, lawmakers would need time to examine and digest the legislation. And that's hardly all." There's the need to write it, the need to read it, the need to understand it, the need to score it, the need for it to be 'real,' the need for it to be processed and supported by each side's base, the need to assemble the necessary votes," said GOP lobbyist Eric Ueland, a former longtime Senate aide. And that's assuming everything goes according to plan — that the debt-budget pact doesn't get blown up by a revolt from the tea party on the right or frustrated Democrats on the left. That's a huge "if." It took many months to move a 2005 budget-cutting bill — which ended up cutting about $100 billion over 10 years — through the system, and that was when Republicans controlled both the White House and all the congressional committees that drew the legislation up. Now, GOP-controlled House panels and Democratic-led Senate committees with little experience working together will have to write up an agreement hatched by Obama and the top leaders in both parties. Battles are unavoidable. The House and Senate Agriculture committees, for example, will be asked to implement farm subsidy cuts they either disagree with or would prefer to do in a more deliberate fashion later. Even items that both sides agree on, such as lucrative auctions of electromagnetic spectrum to wireless companies, can be enormously complicated to implement. Core questions, like how much money to devote to building a new, more effective wireless system for emergency responders and how much to compensate broadcasters for giving up their existing rights to spectrum, seem much too complicated to resolve in a couple of weeks. The degree of difficulty is heightened by the desire to generate a package of deficit cuts in the range of $2.4 trillion over the coming decade to balance a similar increase in the debt limit — one that's large enough to keep the government afloat past the November 2012 election.

2) Debt Ceiling won’t pass- Kyle and GOP block Kaperowicz, Pete Kasperowicz, writer for The Hill, June 20, 2011, “Kyl: GOP wants 10-year plan to cut spending as part of debt deal”, http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/167407-kyl-gop-wants-10-year-plan-to-cut-spending-as-part-of-debt-ceiling-deal, Date accessed June 29, 2011

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) on Monday said Senate Republicans want commitments on a 10-year budget plan that guarantees reduced spending as part of any agreement to increase the debt ceiling." Let's have a down payment on significant savings now," he said. "Let's set the budget numbers for the next 10 years so that they actually represent a reduction in spending, not an increase."Kyl added that Republicans also want real entitlement reform, to make sure spending continues to drop after 10 years. He said Republicans are likely to be uninterested in any agreement that does not include these elements."Let's do that in such a way that we absolutely put constraints on Congress and the president — we put us in a straitjacket so to speak — so that we can't create exceptions and waivers and get around it in other ways," he said. "Unless we do those things, I don't think most of the people on my side of the aisle are going to have an appetite for increasing the debt ceiling. I know I'm not."Kyl used his time on the floor to argue that raising taxes is not necessarily the way to increase government revenues, and said a study by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute shows that historically, more revenue is generated by lower taxes. Kyl argued that this is because taxes are a tax on economic activity, which is stunted

DDW 2011

when taxes rise.Vice President Biden's debt-ceiling group is expected to meet at least three times this week in the hopes of securing an agreement on how to allow for an increase. Kyl is part of this group, along with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), and others. 2AC AT: Debt Ceiling [2/3] 3) MSL boosts political capital Aviation Week & Space Technology 05 (Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11/12/05, “Lunar Exploration Vision Obscures Successes on Mars,” http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1075, JF) The Mars project argued hard for twin MSL rovers for hardware and scientific redundancy--just as was done for the current rovers. But that has been ruled out, and the emphasis now needs to be on maintaining an unwavering focus on MSL funding, technology and testing. To deemphasize the robotic Mars program now, in a tradeoff with the manned lunar vision, would be a terrible mistake. Washington needs to be reawakened to the quantifiable payoff the robotic Mars program brings now, in terms of NASA political capital in Congress and scientific, educational and technological benefits to the U.S. as a whole. Accompanying these factors is exploration as a positive symbol of America's contributions to all mankind.

4) Mars spending generates sustained political support Thompson 11 (Loren, Chief Financial Officer – Lexington Institute, “Human Spaceflight”, April, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf)

This all makes sense from a budgetary and scientific perspective. What’s missing is a grasp of the rationale required to sustain political support across multiple administrations. While exploration of the Moon’s far side or nearby asteroids may have major scientific benefits, those benefits are unlikely to be appreciated by politicians struggling to reconcile record deficits. NASA’s current research plans do not connect well with the policy agendas of either major political party, and the flexible path will not change that. To justify investments of hundreds of billions of dollars in human spaceflight over the next 20 years while entitlements are being pared and taxes are increasing, NASA must offer a justification for its efforts commensurate with the sacrifices required . Mars is the only objective of sufficient interest or importance that can fill that role. Thus, the framework of missions undertaken pursuant to the flexible-path approach must always be linked to the ultimate goal of putting human beings on the Martian surface, and the investments made must be justified mainly on that basis. The American public can be convinced to support a costly series of steps leading to a worthwhile objective, but trips to the Moon and near-Earth objects aren’t likely to generate sustained political support during a period of severe fiscal stress.

5) Republicans like NASA funding – jobs William Browning (reporter for Yahoo News) 2/7/10 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2676695/republicans_whine_about_nasa_budget.html?cat=9 According to the Los Angeles Times on February 4th, NASA's slashing of programs will cost jobs in 40 states. These losses are on top of the 7,000 jobs lost due to the cancellation of the Space Shuttle Program. The Houston Chronicle says that Alabama's Congressional delegation is worried since about 2,500 jobs in the Huntsville area were tied to the Constellation project of returning to the moon by 2020. Alabama Democratic Senator Bill Nelson told the Chronicle that he hopes to salvage something of the cuts for his state when the budgetary process comes to his committee. Hunstville's mayor was also quoted in the Chronicle story as saying that America, as a country, "is in danger of ...falling behind other countries." The Kansas City Star has quoted Alabama Republican Senator Richard C. Shelby as saying "the NASA budget begins the death march for the future of U.S. human space flight." Other Republicans have also criticized the Obama effort to cut NASA's projects. Why the Controversy? I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why there is so much bristling backlash over the NASA budget. The NASA budget is actually increased over the next five years, but Republicans are whining about a cut in the size of the government. I though Republicans supported the idea that smaller government was better and less government spending was better. Bush's proposal for Constellation would have cost a total of $100 billion and was based upon a goal that has already been achieved with forty year old technology

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Debt Ceiling [3/3] 6) NASA Shores up tons of jobs Reuters Andrea Shalal-Esa 1/13/09 “NASA Funding Boost Could Create Jobs: Griffin” http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-nasa-economy-idUSTRE50C7DX20090113 More money for NASA in any an economic stimulus package would create jobs now and shore up the U.S. leadership in aerospace, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said on Tuesday. "Aerospace exports are one of the few really positive balance of trade items for us," Griffin told reporters at a Space Foundation event, adding that investing in NASA programs would create high-paying jobs in a large number of states. "Aerospace jobs jump-start the economy," said Griffin, who said he would be glad to stay on in his job under the Obama administration, but did not expect to be asked. Prime contractors for the Constellation shuttle replacement program include Boeing Co, Alliant Techsystems Inc, Pratt & Whitney, a United Technologies Corp unit, which are building the new Ares rocket; and Lockheed Martin Corp, which is developing the Orion capsule spacecraft. "If you accelerate Ares and Orion as shuttle replacement vehicles, you provide immediate jobs to all of the aerospace states, which is quite a large number. That's immediate. I can start buying parts tomorrow if I have the money," he said.

7) Jobs key to economy Paul Wiseman 12/8/10 “Economy is making steady gains despite weak hiring” http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp? newsitemid=116695 The US economy is starting to fire on almost every cylinder these days but the one that matters most: Job creation. Factories are busier. Incomes are rising. Autos are selling. The holiday shopping season is shaping up as the best in four years. Stock prices are surging. And many analysts are raising their forecasts for the economy’s growth. Goldman Sachs, for instance, just revised its gloomy prediction of a 2% increase in gross domestic product in 2011 to 2.7% and forecast 3.6% growth for 2012. “The upward momentum has more traction this time,” says James O’Sullivan, chief economist at MF Global. If only every major pillar of the economy were faring so well. Despite weeks of brighter economic news, employers still aren’t hiring freely. The economy added a net total of just 39,000 jobs in November, the government said on Friday. That’s far too few even to stabilise the unemployment rate, which rose from 9.6% in October to 9.8% last month. Unemployment is widely expected to stay above 9% through next year, in part because of the still-depressed real estate industry. Job creation ultimately drives the economy, and it remains the most significant weak link. The meagre job gains for November confounded economists. They’d expected net job growth to reach 145,000 and for the unemployment rate to stay at 9.6%. Some economists dismissed the November data as a technical fluke, a result of the government’s difficulty in adjusting the figures for seasonal factors. They think the number will be revised up later. Others saw the jobs report as a reminder that the economy is still struggling to emerge from an epic financial crisis that choked off credit, stifled spending and escalated a “normal” recession into the worst in 70 years. The depth of the financial crisis means the recovery will proceed more slowly than many had hoped or expected, they say.

8) Obama is only focusing on the economy – it’s his only way to get votes Chris Stirewalt (reporter at fox news) 6/28/11 “Details Emerge on Obama Tax Hike Plan” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/28/details-emerge-on-obama-tax-hike-plan/ The White House has started the public phase of negotiations on obtaining a debt ceiling increase from Republicans and deficit-anxious moderate Democrats. It’s the latest sign that President Obama is feeling the heat on the deal What the president wants is some kind of a tax increase so that he can keep his political base hushed up and get the debt hike passed quickly. Remember, for a president whose greatest liability is a deteriorating economy, the uncertainty and worry in the business and finance sectors that would be caused by brinksmanship could outweigh the political benefits of taking Republicans to the edge and calling them obstructionists and radicals. The closer to the brink Obama takes the negotiations, the better deal he can get, but the greater chance for catastrophe and the perception that the Washington he promised to reform is more badly broken than ever. Obama gave some halfhearted support to the idea of a grand tax compromise, the kind of deal where rates drop but loopholes close, as was done in Ronald Reagan’s second term. There seems to be little hope for such a deal with only 35 days until the deadline imposed by the Treasury Department for beginning a government shutdown.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Tradeoff DA

Advertising would be used to fund Mars Colonization Efforts Rhawn, Joseph (Ph.D Psychiatry) “Colonizing the red planet: A how-to guide” December 2010 http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars110.html The conquest of Mars and the establishment of a colony on the surface of the Red Planet could cost up to $150 billion dollars over 10 years. These funds can be easily raised through a massive advertising campaign, and if the U.S. Congress and the governments of other participating nations, grant to an independent corporation (The Human Mission to Mars Corporation, a hypothetical entity), sole legal authority to initiate, administer, and supervise the marketing, merchandizing, sponsorship, broadcasting, and licensing initiatives detailed in this article. It is estimated that $10 billion a year can be raised by clever marketing and advertising thereby generating public awareness and enthusiasm, and through the sale of Mars' merchandise ranging from toys to clothing. With clever marketing and advertising and the subsequent increase in 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" to Mars landing craft, the Mars Colony, etc., would yield an estimated $30 billion. Television broadcasting rights would bring in an estimated $30 billion. This comes to a total of up to $160 billion, and does not include the sale of Mars' real estate and mineral rights and other commercial ventures.

DDW 2011

2AC AT: Elections DA 1) The GOP will win, but a new initiative could lead to an Obama Victory Rove 11 [Karl Rove, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, 6/30/11, “ How the GOP Can Blow It in 2012” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304450604576415703953311980.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, Caplan]

High unemployment, anemic growth, defections in key groups such as independents and Hispanics, and unpopular policies are among the reasons President Obama is unlikely to win re-election. But likely to lose is far from certain to lose. If Republicans make enough unforced errors, Mr. Obama could win. The first such mistake would be forgetting that the target voters are those ready to swing away from Mr. Obama (independents, Hispanics, college educated and young voters) and those whose opposition to Mr. Obama has deepened since 2008 (seniors and working-class voters). These voters gave the GOP a big win in the 2010 midterm. They are deeply concerned about the economy, jobs, spending, deficits and health care. Many still like Mr. Obama personally but disapprove of his handling of the issues. They are not GOP primary voters, but they are watching the contest. The Republican Party will find it more difficult to gain their support if its nominee adopts a tone that's harshly negative and personally anti-Obama. The GOP nominee should fiercely challenge Mr. Obama's policies, actions and leadership using the president's own words, but should stay away from questioning his motives, patriotism or character. He will do this to his GOP opponent to try to draw Republicans into the mud pit. They should avoid it. It won't be easy. Mr. Obama can't win re-election by trumpeting his achievements. And he has decided against offering a bold agenda for a second term: That was evident in his State of the Union emphasis on high-speed rail, high-speed Internet and "countless" green jobs. Instead, backed by a brutally efficient opposition research unit, the president will use focus-group tested lines of attack to disqualify the Republican nominee by questioning his or her values, intentions and intelligence. Republicans should avoid giving him mistakes to pounce on and should stand up to this withering assault, always looking for ways to turn it back on Mr. Obama and his record. The GOP candidate must express disappointment and regret, not disgust and anger, especially in the debates. Ronald Reagan's cheery retorts to Jimmy Carter's often-petty attacks are a good model. Any day that isn't a referendum on the Obama presidency should be considered wasted. Republicans also must not confuse the tea party movement with the larger, more important tea party sentiment. As important as tea party groups are, and for all the energy and passion they bring, for every person who showed up at a tea party rally there were dozens more who didn't but who share the deep concerns about Mr. Obama's profligate spending, record deficits and monstrous health-care bill. The GOP candidate must stay focused on this broader tea party sentiment, not just the organized groups, especially when some of them stray from the priorities that gave rise to them (for example, adopting such causes as the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which established election of U.S. senators by popular vote). The broader sentiment is what swung independents so solidly into the GOP column last fall. The GOP nominee could also lose if the Republican National Committee (RNC) and battleground-state party committees battleground-state party committees don't respond to the Obama grass-roots operation with a significant effort of their own. The GOP had the edge in grass-roots identification, persuasion, registration and turnout efforts in 2000 and 2004. It lost these advantages in 2008, big time, in part because its candidate didn't emphasize the grass roots. It must regain them in 2012. Only the RNC and the state party committees can effectively plan, fund and execute these efforts. Finally, Republicans cannot play it safe. It is tempting to believe that Mr. Obama is so weak, the economy so fragile, that attacking him is all that's needed. Applying relentless pressure on the president is necessary but insufficient. Setting forth an alternative vision to Mr. Obama's will be required as well. Voters are looking for a serious GOP governing agenda as a reason to turn Mr. Obama out of office. Failing to offer a well-thought-out vision and defend it against Mr. Obama's inevitable distortions, demagoguery and straw-man arguments would put the GOP nominee in the position of Thomas Dewey in 1948, whose strategy of running out the clock gave President Harry Truman the opening he needed. Mr. Obama could have enjoyed the advantage of incumbency—with its power to set the agenda and dominate the stage—until next spring when the GOP nomination will be settled. Instead he prematurely abandoned the stance of an assured public leader to become an aggressive political candidate. Now his re-election depends on political rivals making significant errors. That's dangerous for any politician, but given his Oval Office record, Mr. Obama may have no other viable strategy.

2) Mars is the Only Program that can Revitalize NASA and garner the public support to Reinvigorate Obama Thompson 11 [Loren Thompson -- Chief Financial Officer Lexington Institute, April 2011, “Human Spaceflight”, http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/HumanSpaceflight-Mars.pdf, Caplan]

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s human spaceflight program is one of the greatest scientific achievements in history. However, the program has been slowly dying since the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster 25 years ago. Faltering political support, failed technologies and competing claims on an under-funded federal budget have made it

DDW 2011

difficult to sustain a coherent program from administration to administration. The Obama Administration has offered a bold plan for nudging human spaceflight out of its decaying orbit, but the plan received only mixed support in Congress and looks unlikely to sustain political momentum over the long term. Although NASA consumes less than one-percent of the federal budget, it does not connect well with the current economic or social agendas of either major political party. The broad support for the human spaceflight program early in its history was traceable largely to the ideological rivalry between America and Russia that produced the Moon race. Today, no such external driver exists to sustain support of human spaceflight across the political spectrum. The program therefore must generate some intrinsic rationale -- some combination of high purpose and tangible benefit -- to secure funding. Recent efforts at generating a compelling rationale, such as the “flexible path” and “capabilities driven” approaches currently favored by the space agency, are inadequate. They do not resonate with the political culture. In the current fiscal and cultural environment, there is only one goal for the human spaceflight program that has a chance of capturing the popular imagination: Mars. The Red Planet is by far the most Earth-like object in the known universe beyond the Earth itself, with water, seasons, atmosphere and other features that potentially make it habitable one day by humans. In addition, its geological characteristics make it a potential treasure trove of insights into the nature of the solar system -- insights directly relevant to what the future may hold for our own world. And Mars has one other key attraction: it is reachable. Unlike the hundreds of planets now being discovered orbiting distant stars, astronauts could actually reach Mars within the lifetime of a person living today, perhaps as soon as 20 years from now. This report makes the case for reorienting NASA’s human spaceflight program to focus on an early manned mission to Mars. It begins by briefly reviewing the history of the human spaceflight program and explaining why current visions of the program’s future are unlikely to attract sustained political support. It then describes the appeal of Mars as an ultimate destination, and the range of tangible benefits that human missions there could produce. It concludes by describing the budgetary resources and scientific tools needed to carry out such missions. The basic thesis of the report is that human missions to Mars can be accomplished within NASA’s currently projected budgets; that proposed missions to other destinations such as near-Earth asteroids should be reconfigured as stepping-stones to the ultimate goal of the Red Planet; and that if Mars does not become the official goal of the human spaceflight program, then the program will effectively be dead by the end of the current decade.

Last printed 9/4/2009 07:00:00 PM 45