Nasa Funding Tradeoff (politics) (.pdf Version)

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 1 of 32

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) -- Index (1/3) Normal Means ............................................................................................................................4 A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs .............................................................................................. 4 The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year ......................................4 Normal means for supplementary spending is for it to be funded by cutting other programs – they trade-off..4 “Paygo” rules require that new spending trade off with old spending.................................................................5 PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs ..........................................5

B. NASA is properly funded now – Obama’s political capital ............................................................... 6 Status quo gives Obama the necessary political cover to hold the line on NASA ................................................6 Obama will push the NASA budget up now.............................................................................................................6 The absence of political makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut .................................6

C. NASA is properly funded now – budget ........................................................................................... 7 2010 budget request is still strong for NASA ..........................................................................................................7 NASA funding is going up now but is not completely decided ...............................................................................7 NASA is properly funded – however, new funding risks getting it cut based on shifting priorities ....................7 The 2009 budget gives NASA 18.7 billion ...............................................................................................................7

D. NASA’s cut first .............................................................................................................................. 8 Empirically, increased spending proposals are at the expense of NASA..............................................................8 NASA is typically cut to fund new programs ...........................................................................................................8 Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration ......................................................8 NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo................................................................9 Space is on the chopping block; any new spending will kill it...............................................................................9

E. A stable budget is key..................................................................................................................... 10 A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term.................................................................................................. 10 Funding is key to American space program overall ............................................................................................ 10

AT: Only small cuts............................................................................................................................ 11 Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy – even if it exists, it won’t be effective. ................................................. 11

AT: No tradeoff .................................................................................................................................. 12 A. If the plan DOESN’T trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility. ........................................ 12 B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse......................................................................... 12 C. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict ................................................................................... 13 Backup: Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict ........................................................ 13

AT: Obama won’t follow PayGo......................................................................................................... 14 Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does .......................................................................... 14 Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high....................................................................................... 14

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 2 of 32

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) -- Index (2/3) Impact: Hegemony....................................................................................................................15 A. The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more the entire program is jeopardized and the more likely accidents become ................................................................................................................................................... 15 B. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA and forcing us to turn to the Russians for space access .......................................................................................................... 15 C. Competitiveness is key to hegemony ................................................................................................................ 16 D. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing proliferation, regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global “cold or hot war” (including nuclear exchange)................................................................................................................................................................ 16

Hegemony Extensions ..............................................................................................................17 A. Domestic Access............................................................................................................................ 17 NASA is key to providing domestic access space (and to Florida’s economy).................................................. 17 NASA needs funding or human space travel is gone forever .............................................................................. 17 A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy..................................................................... 18

B. Leadership...................................................................................................................................... 19 Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership.......................................................................................... 19 NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key....................................................................... 19 Soft power is key to hegemony .............................................................................................................................. 20 Space superiority is key to military hegemony..................................................................................................... 20

Impact: Global Warming...........................................................................................................21 A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere............................................................................. 21 B. That places the climate program in jeopardy – means we can’t deal with warming ................................... 21 C. Global warming rips the fabric of our biosphere apart, destroying nature and our very race ................... 22

Impact: Soft Power ...................................................................................................................23 A. NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key. ................................................................. 23 B. Soft Power is key to providing foreign talent, preventing anti-Americanism and terrorism, maintaining international influence, reducing proliferation, disease, human and drug trafficking ..................................... 23

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 3 of 32

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics) -- Index (3/3) Impact: Economy......................................................................................................................24 A. NASA funding is key to the economy ................................................................................................................ 24 B. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict ................................................................................... 24

Economy Extensions.................................................................................................................25 A. NASA............................................................................................................................................ 25 A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy..................................................................... 25

B. Impact ............................................................................................................................................ 26 Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict ....................................................................... 26

Impact: No Mo’ Space Colonization .........................................................................................27 A. NASA is key to accessing international cooperation on space colonization and the space market ............ 27 B. The future of an earthbound human race holds a bleak future of inevitable extinction – only colonizing space can enable the possibility of surviving in the long term – it’s do or die .................................................. 28

Space Colonization Extensions .................................................................................................29 Space colonization solves extinction..................................................................................................................... 29

Impact: Blitzkrieg and/or Spartaaaaa! .......................................................................................30 NASA is key to prevent extinction: comets, nuclear threats, nukes, bioterrorism, an aging sun...................... 30

AT: China gets mad ..................................................................................................................31 China supports space exploration – they won’t oppose the results of it ............................................................ 31

AT: Free market would solve....................................................................................................32 Privatization causes more accidents and deaths from space travel ................................................................... 32

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 4 of 32

Normal Means A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs The plan is supplementary spending, or spending added in the middle of a fiscal year The OMB Watcher Online [a nonprofit research and advocacy organization], Vol. 1 No. 3, "Biennial Budgeting", February 29, 2000 (HEG) Sen. Dominici (R-NM) again introduced a bill (S.92) to change the federal budget, appropriations and authorization processes from a yearly cycle to every two years. It has been placed on the Senate legislative calendar and will likely be considered within the next few months. Here's a quick primer: Why biennial budgeting? The argument is that a biennial budget cycle would streamline the budget process, provide more focused time for congressional oversight, and enhance the ability of agencies to manage their operations. It sounds good, but would this really help, or cause a yearly unscheduled train wreck, rather than the usual and anticipated yearly wreck? Following are a few of the problems: The yearly budget process requires working on budgets far in advance. Biennial budgeting would increase this forecasting, quite possibly leading to decisions that are outdated. Appropriations for the second year of the budget cycle would be decided well more than two years in advance. For instance, economic changes could require an adjustment of fiscal policy; normal

oversight findings on various government programs could indicate the need for more or less resources; or epidemics, social issues, or international crises could arise that weren't contemplated when the budget was prepared. The budget would then have to be adjusted mid-stream, leading to more, rather than less, careful deliberation, and more, rather than less, emergency and supplemental appropriations, making for a messier budget decided in an ad hoc fashion. Normal means for supplementary spending is for it to be funded by cutting other programs – they trade-off. Statement of Dan L. Crippen, Director, Congressional Budget Office, on Proposals to Change the Rescission Process before the Subcommittee on Legislative and Budget Process Committee on Rules, U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Budget Office Testimony, July 30, 1999 (HEG) [Note: rescissions: "the revocation, cancellation, or repeal of a law, order or agreement." Oxford American Dictionaries] THE RESCISSION PROCESS The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 created the rescission process as a Congressional check on unilateral action by the President to impound appropriated funding. More recently, however, rescissions have been used to accommodate changed priorities, helping to offset new spending with cancellations of funding previously made available. In that respect, the rescission process can promote fiscal discipline and help to limit spending. Under the provisions of the 1974 act, the President can propose to rescind spending authority provided by the Congress. The Congress has 45 days of continuous session to approve the President's request, but it does not have to act on his proposals. During the 45-day period, the President can withhold the funds proposed for rescission. Once that period has expired, however, the funds must be made available for obligation. The Congress can also initiate rescissions. Between 1990 and 1999, rescissions initiated by the Congress accounted for more than 60 percent of all rescinded budget authority and resulting first-year outlays. Rescission proposals generally fall into two categories. Most enacted rescissions are included in supplemental appropriation acts

and are explicitly intended to offset the spending contained in those acts (see Table 1). The other general type of rescission is enacted in regular appropriation acts for a variety of purposes. (All of the rescissions shown in Table 1 cancel either discretionary budget authority or contract authority.)

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 5 of 32

Normal Means A. Spending is PayGo; made in tradeoffs “Paygo” rules require that new spending trade off with old spending STENY HOYER [House majority leader] & GEORGE MILLER [chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor], "Congress Must Pay for What It Spends", Wall Street Journal Online, June 25, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588708823850591.html (HEG) President Obama has made the pay-as-you-go rule -- a.k.a. "paygo" -- a central part of his campaign for fiscal responsibility. Under paygo, Congress is compelled to find savings for the dollars it spends. In the 1990s, paygo proved to be one of our most valuable tools for climbing out of a budgetary hole. As President Obama put it earlier this month, "It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved . . . to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record deficits that doubled the national debt." President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress set paygo aside, turning borrowed money into massive tax cuts for the most privileged. Borrowing made those tax cuts politically pain-free as long as Mr. Bush was in office, but it only passed the bill on to the next generation -- along with ever-inflating interest payments. Democrats, on the other hand, understand that we owe it to our fiscal future to pay our bills up-front. As soon as our party took back Congress in 2007, we made the principle of paying for what we buy part of the House rules. To be sure, Congress hasn't always lived up to that commitment, usually when the Senate rejected House bills that were paid for. But that is all the more reason to give paygo the force of law. On Mr. Obama's behalf, we have introduced legislation to keep Congress, whether

controlled by Democrats or Republicans, from sacrificing our fiscal health to the political pressures of the moment. PAYGO rules require that any new programs be funded by cutting other programs RTTNEWS, “Orszag Says Statutory PAYGO Strengthens Fiscal Responsibility”, June 25, 2009, http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/TOP%20STORY/2390190/ (HEG) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget said Thursday that the new Statutory Pay-AsYou-Go Act of 2009 would strengthen the country's enforcement of and reemphasize its commitment to fiscal discipline. At a hearing before the full House Budget Committee, OMB Director Peter Orszag emphasized the need to enact the PAYGO Act proposed by the Obama Administration into law. "We should follow that Hippocratic Oath that first directs doctors to do no harm," Orszag said. PAYGO rules, enacted as part of the Budget Enforcement Act

of 1990, require that increases in direct spending and decreases in revenue be offset by other spending cuts or revenue increases. Starting in the late 1990s, when the federal budget was in surplus, Congress began loosening PAYGO rules before fully abandoning them in 2002. However, facing a fiscal year 2009 deficit of $1.7 trillion, the Obama administration has endorsed making PAYGO a statutory part of the budget process in order to reign in new entitlement spending and new tax cuts. Before the committee, Orszag outlined the rules of the PAYGO Act and described how the OMB would enforce those rules to make sure Congress adheres to the PAYGO principle. In prepared testimony, Orszag said that the OMB would maintain a PAYGO ledger to record "the average ten-year budgetary effects of all legislation enacted through 2013 that affects governmental receipts or mandatory outlays relative to the baseline." Orszag also said that the PAYGO Act would enforce budget constraint through the threat of

sequestration and will force policy makers to make decisions to pay for new mandatory spending and tax reductions. Speaking more specifically, Orszag added that President Obama could sequester resources from non-mandatory programs if there is a net cost found on the PAYGO ledger. "Set up in this way, sequestration strongly encourages policymakers never to violate PAYGO budget constraint and trigger sequestration--in other words, sequestration is in practice a threat, not a remedy," he said.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 6 of 32

Normal Means B. NASA is properly funded now – Obama’s political capital Status quo gives Obama the necessary political cover to hold the line on NASA Stewart M. Powell [reporter], “NASA worried about program’s future”, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle, June 11, 2009, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG) “It’s basic human instinct to wonder and perhaps worry about the future when this type of review is being conducted,” says Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, whose district includes Johnson Space Center. The best-case scenario for Texas interests is that the independent panel, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, will provide Obama political cover to adopt President George W. Bush’s previous NASA road map. The Bush plan for the Constellation program would unite the Ares rocket system and the Orion crew capsule to reach the orbiting International Space Station beyond 2015 and the moon by 2020.

Obama will push the NASA budget up now Mark Whittington [reporter], “Obama 2010 Budget to Increase NASA Funding”, Feb 26, 2009, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1513884/obama_2010_budget_to_increase_nasa.html (HEG) President Barack Obama's FY2010 budget request contains a generous increase for NASA, from a projected 2009 level of $17.8 billion to $18.7 billion in FY2010. The 2010 Obama budget request also endorses the return to the Moon program. There are few details as of yet of how the money will be distributed among the various NASA accounts in the 2010 Obama budget requests. But there are indications as to what Obama's priorities will be for the space agency. 2010 NASA budget highlights include, according to the White House: "Provides $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Combined with the $1 billion provided to the agency in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, his represents a total increase of more than $2.4 billion over the 2008 level.

The absence of political makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut Jeff Brooks [founder and director of the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration], “Introducing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration”, April 14 2008, http://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1 (HEG) For far too long, space exploration has been an invisible issue on the political campaign trails of America. While the 2008 election cycle has seen more discussion of space issues than we have seen in previous years, it still ranks very far down the list of priorities when compared to nearly every other issue. Not surprisingly,

candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason why we were not on Mars two decades ago and why ships with human crews are not voyaging into the outer solar system today. The lack of a fully-empowered political action committee has been a major contributing factor in the lack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there were no such thing as the National Rifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 7 of 32

Normal Means C. NASA is properly funded now – budget 2010 budget request is still strong for NASA Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Paul Shawcross, chief of the science and space branch in the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the administration's commitment to NASA was evident in the 2009 stimulus package — which included $1 billion for NASA programs — as well as in its 2010 budget request. NASA funding is going up now but is not completely decided Niki Doyle [reporter], “NASA funding restored to $18.7 billion to support Ares”, June 25, 2009, http://blog.al.com/space-news/2009/06/nasa_funding_restored_to_187_b.html (HEG) A Senate subcommittee has restored hundreds of millions to NASA's proposed 2010 budget that were cut in the House version of a more than $65 billion spending bill, according to Alabama U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa. Earlier this month, the House approved a spending bill that moved hundreds of millions out of exploration and support programs in the NASA budget of $18.686 billion requested by President Barack Obama.

NASA is properly funded – however, new funding risks getting it cut based on shifting priorities ALLISON CONNOLLY, “Sen. Warner tells NASA Langley that he’ll seek boost in budget”, The Virginian-Pilot, October 4, 2003, http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=60617&ran=212901 (HEG) HAMPTON — U.S. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., traveled to NASA Langley Research Center Friday to assure employees that he will try to preserve funding for their programs, despite a bleak budget outlook. The meeting was closed to the public and the media was not allowed to attend or ask employees questions, per NASA Langley rules. However, Warner said afterward that he had announced plans to propose a 10 percent increase in funding for NASA programs, particularly the NASA Engineering and Safety Center that is slated to open at NASA Langley on Nov. 1. The center will be responsible for safety and engineering assessments for the entire agency. Warner said employees voiced concern about potential budget cuts. “There’s always a bit of apprehension about job security when there’s a fluctuation in budgets and a shift in priorities,” Warner said. The 2009 budget gives NASA 18.7 billion Space.com, “Obama Budget Includes Funding Boost for NASA”, February 26, 2009, http://www.space.com/news/090226-nasa-obama-2010-budget.html (HEG) U.S. President Barack Obama has proposed a funding boost for NASA that provides more support for Earth sciences missions and aviation, while keeping the agency's three space shuttles on target for a 2010 retirement. NASA

would receive $18.7 billion for the 2010 fiscal year under the budget proposal released by the White House on Thursday. That would be an increase from the $17.2 billion NASA received in 2008 and represents an overall boost of more than $2.4 billion for the space agency when coupled with the additional $1 billion it received in the recent economic stimulus bill.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 8 of 32

Normal Means D. NASA’s cut first Empirically, increased spending proposals are at the expense of NASA ANDREW TAYLOR [Associated Press writer], The Dalles Chronicle, “House approves spending for domestic agencies”, © 2001-2007 Eagle Newspapers Inc., AP materials © 2006-2007 Associated Press. February 1, 2007, http://www.thedalleschronicle.com/news/2007/02/news02-01-07-03.shtml (HEG) WASHINGTON — The House passed a $463.5 billion spending bill Wednesday that covers about onesixth of the federal budget as Democrats cleared away the financial mess they inherited from Republicans. Before the 286-140 vote, Republicans made modest objections to Democrats’ spending decisions but protested greatly over how the new majority muscled the measure through the House. Democrats said the legislation would increase spending on education, veterans, health research and grants to state and local law enforcement agencies. Among the trade-offs were cuts to President Bush’s budget requests for NASA, foreign aid, and aid for communities affected by the latest round of military base closings. NASA is typically cut to fund new programs The Associated Press, "Budget cuts hurt NASA", Published, July 10, 2003, Re-Published in The Topeka Capital-Journal Online, http://cjonline.com/stories/071003/pag_nasa.shtml (HEG) "When you start adding up the overall NASA budget picture and the shuttle budget picture over the past decade, it's rather clear the shuttle had disproportionately taken budget cuts to fund the space station, to fund Russian participation in the station," Logsdon said. "The shuttle program has served as sort of a cash cow." Between 1993 and 2000, the space shuttle's operating budget was slashed by more than $1 billion a year as a result of policy decisions by NASA, the White House and Congress to cancel two major shuttle upgrades and to shift money to help finance construction of the space station and to reduce a government-wide budget deficit. Even funding NASA for other reasons takes money out of space exploration Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Oberman said increases in other parts of NASA's budget, including aeronautics and Earth science, came at the expense of out-year funding for space exploration. Obermann said he sees NASA's current funding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review to influence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe. Obermann said he was encouraged by the choice of Augustine to lead the human spaceflight review, noting testimony Augustine gave before the House Science and Technology Committee in 2004, shortly after former President George W. Bush announced plans to replace the space shuttle and return astronauts to the Moon. At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offered many benefits, but that "it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on the cheap. To do so is in my opinion an invitation to disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost any budget that is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake — particularly when safety is a major consideration."

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 9 of 32

Normal Means D. NASA’s cut first NASA funding is volatile and under extensive review in the status quo Stewart M. Powell [reporter], “NASA worried about program’s future”, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle, June 11, 2009, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG) WASHINGTON — For the first time since man set foot on the moon four decades ago, a president has ordered a wholesale review of the space program’s future and whether the U.S. can afford to — or even wants to — return to the moon or send humans hurtling toward Mars. With new leadership poised to take command of NASA, the next few months could be pivotal to the jobs of thousands of space program employees and contractors who depend on NASA for their livelihoods. As the shuttle prepares for its future as a museum exhibit and cost projections for a new moon mission rise while the timetable slips, the space agency’s political future is very much in doubt. Despite President Barack Obama’s repeated expressions of excitement about space exploration, his administration’s ongoing scrutiny of the manned program is stirring concern among NASA employees and aerospace contractors that jobs will be lost, multibillion-dollar contracts will be jeopardized and the planned return to the moon will be delayed or even scrapped. Space is on the chopping block; any new spending will kill it Space politics.com, June 25 2009, “Senate doesn’t follow House lead on exploration cuts”, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2009/06/25/senate-doesnt-follow-house-lead-on-exploration-cuts/ (HEG) The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up their FY2010 appropriations bill yesterday and appear to have more closely followed the White House’s request than the House did earlier this month. According to the summary, the bill provides $18.68 billion for NASA overall, equal to the administration’s topline request. The summary doesn’t give the full breakout of funds by account so it’s hard to tell how closely this matches the president’s request (especially if they created a “Construction and environmental compliance” account like the House did.) Also unclear is the fate of some smaller programs, like Centennial Challenges and related innovation efforts that are feared to be on the chopping block despite their small ($20 million) price tag. However, we do know thanks to the Orlando Sentinel that the bill includes three earmarks for Sen. Bill Nelson (DFL) totaling $1.6 million, primarily for facilities at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The full Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to take up the bill at 3 pm this afternoon.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 10 of 32

Normal Means E. A stable budget is key A stable budget is key to NASA in the long term Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Concerns raised NASA's current human spaceflight plan calls for retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and replacing it with a crew capsule dubbed Orion that would be launched atop a shuttle-derived rocket, the Ares-1, starting in 2015. At the president's request, Augustine's panel is taking a second look at this plan, along with NASA's strategy for returning astronauts to the Moon by 2020, given the likely available budgets over the next several years. Funding is key to American space program overall Tory Dunnan [reporter], “Senator Shelby talks about NASA budget”, WAFF48News, ©2009 WAFF, July 8, 2009, http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=10496056&nav=0hBEZy2y While it may be a celebration, many who work in the space industry fear the future. The NASA budget is still in the works. "I will do everything I can to make sure Marshall is properly funded in the scheme of the whole NASA situation. But we have not marked up yet," said Senator Shelby. It's funding that will determine America's role in space, and a mission with roots right here in North Alabama.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 11 of 32

Normal Means AT: Only small cuts Cutting NASA dooms it to irrelevancy – even if it exists, it won’t be effective. Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review], “NASA and soft power, again”, The Space Review, June 15, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG) If, however, it is excessively restrictive or, alternatively, if its abandons its leadership role, then NASA will gradually cease to be a significant national asset and become just another special interest pleading for a handout. The new leadership at the space agency has a set of tough decisions ahead of it. Whatever choices they make, the role of NASA as a creative part of America’s worldwide influence is a powerful argument for the agency.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 12 of 32

Normal Means AT: No tradeoff A. If the plan DOESN’T trade off, it tubes PayGo, destroying fiscal responsibility. Jonathan DeWald, The Concord Coalition [a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president], “Concord Coalition Supports Statutory Paygo But Cautions Against Large Exemptions”, June 9, 2009, http://www.concordcoalition.org/pressreleases/2009/0609/concord-coalition-supports-statutory-paygo-cautions-against-large-exemption (HEG) "Finding a cure for the nation's dire fiscal outlook will obviously require a lot more than a new budget rule, but enactment of statutory paygo would send a very positive signal that the federal government is beginning to take the problem seriously. We have to begin forcing the kind of trade-offs that were not made when large deficit financed tax cuts and entitlement expansions were enacted after the old paygo law expired," said Robert Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition. The administration's proposal builds off the paygo rules put in place during the 1990s. Similar in design, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would keep a running scorecard for the costs associated with enacted legislation through 2013 and compare those costs to the established baseline. At the conclusion of each session of Congress, OMB would be required to subject any resulting difference between the baseline and enacted legislation to sequestration -- an automatic trigger, which would reduce non-exempt mandatory programs. "While statutory paygo would be a positive development, its effects should not be overestimated. At best, paygo is intended to stop the fiscal bleeding and, in this case, the exempted policies allow a lot of blood loss before the tourniquet is applied. The most immediate benefit of the new law would be to reinforce the President's commitment to pay for health care reform. This is extremely important and a minimum requirement for fiscal responsibility. However, given that health care spending is already on an unsustainable path, deficit-neutrality is not a sufficient long-term fiscal goal," Bixby said. B. Fiscal irresponsibility is likely to trigger economic collapse Fred Bergsten [Director of the Peterson Institute of International Economics], “The Risks Ahead for the World Economy”, Published at the PIIE [a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution devoted to the study of international economic policy], © Institute for International Economics, September 9, 2004, http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=222 (HEG) Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, also stresses the psychological importance for financial markets of expectations concerning the American budget position. If that deficit is viewed as likely to rise substantially, without any correction in sight, confidence in America's financial instruments and currency could crack. The dollar could fall sharply as it did in 1971-73, 1978-79, 1985-87, and 1994-95. Market interest rates would rise substantially, and the Federal Reserve would probably have to push them still higher to limit the acceleration of inflation. These risks could be intensified by the change in leadership that will presumably take place at the Federal Reserve Board in less than two years, inevitably creating new uncertainties after 25 years of superb stewardship by Mr. Volcker and Alan Greenspan. A very hard landing is not inevitable but neither is it unlikely.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 13 of 32

Normal Means AT: No tradeoff C. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict Walter Russell Mead [Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], New Perspective Quarterly, p. 30, Summer 1992 (HEG) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depressionwill open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's. Backup: Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict T. E. Bearden [LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc. Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)], “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly”, June 12, 2000 (HEG) International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {i} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 14 of 32

Normal Means AT: Obama won’t follow PayGo Pelosi will strictly follow PayGo no matter what Obama does Sentinel & Enterprise [news service], September 13, 2009, “Holding Obama Accountable”, http://m.sentinelandenterprise.com/Sentinel/db_11582/contentdetail.htm;jsessionid=AA21202399FE38 B92C40D152E146DEDF?contentguid=PauhCZmP&pn=0&full=true (HEG) PAYGO is a simple term. It means that Congress can't spend a new dollar without cutting a dollar out of the budget somewhere else. On Monday in the White House Obama tried to adopt the mantra as his own, but actually House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had required the House to budget along PAYGO lines before Obama's presidential candidacy was being taken seriously. Pressure for complete compliance with PayGo is high Sheryl Gay Stolberg [reporter], The NY Times, June 9, 2009, “Obama Aims to Revive Pay as you Go”, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/us/politics/10obama.html (HEG) Mr. Obama has been under intense pressure from moderate and conservative House Democrats to show more fiscal restraint, and an administration official said Tuesday that the lawmakers had been urging him to throw his weight behind reviving the law. Mr. Obama said Tuesday that Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, supported the measure; Ms. Pelosi was at the lectern with him in the East Room.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 15 of 32

Impact: Hegemony A. The more budget-pressed NASA becomes, the more the entire program is jeopardized and the more likely accidents become Amy Klamper [reporter], “Lawmakers slash NASA budget request”, MSNBC, © 2009 Space.com, June 8, 2009, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31171173/ (HEG) Oberman said increases in other parts of NASA's budget, including aeronautics and Earth science, came at the expense of out-year funding for space exploration. Obermann said he sees NASA's current funding projections for 2010-2014 as a placeholder, and that he expects the Augustine panel's review to influence funding for the space agency's exploration programs in the out-year timeframe. Obermann said he was encouraged by the choice of Augustine to lead the human spaceflight review, noting testimony Augustine gave before the House Science and Technology Committee in 2004, shortly after former President George W. Bush announced plans to replace the space shuttle and return astronauts to the Moon. At that time Augustine said manned space exploration offered many benefits, but that "it would be a grave mistake to try to pursue a space program on the cheap. To do so is in my opinion an invitation to disaster. There is a tendency in any can-do organization to believe that it can operate with almost any budget that is made available. The fact is that trying to do so is a mistake — particularly when safety is a major consideration." B. Another accident would destroy competitiveness and space exploration, shutting down NASA and forcing us to turn to the Russians for space access John Snider [Editor at Sci Fi Dimensions], John C. Snider © 2003, “NASA and the Future of Manned Spaceflight”, September 2003, http://www.scifidimensions.com/Sep03/shuttle.htm (HEG) In the aftermath of the recent Columbia tragedy, the shuttle fleet now stands at three, and despite NASA's Herculean efforts to implement new and improved safety protocols, the chances of another shuttle disaster are still significant. The loss of another shuttle, or of another astronaut, could spell the end of the shuttle program. At that point, NASA would either be forced to temporarily abandon manned operations, or to swallow their pride and "outsource" taxi services to the Russians, whose Soyuz system, despite its rude-and-crude reputation, has a comparatively good safety record. Although the financiallystrapped post-Cold War government in Moscow could use the infusion of cash, relying on the Russians is a political option that NASA cannot afford to consider.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 16 of 32

Impact: Hegemony C. Competitiveness is key to hegemony Adam Segal [Maurice R. Greenberg Senior Fellow in China Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations], “Is America Losing Its Edge?” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2004, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101facomment83601/adam-segal/is-america-losing-itsedge.html?mode=print (HEG) The United States' global primacy depends in large part on its ability to develop new technologies and industries faster than anyone else. For the last five decades, U.S. scientific innovation and technological entrepreneurship have ensured the country's economic prosperity and military power. It was Americans who invented and commercialized the semiconductor, the personal computer, and the Internet; other countries merely followed the U.S. lead. Today, however, this technological edge-so long taken for granted-may be slipping, and the most serious challenge is coming from Asia. Through competitive tax policies, increased investment in research and development (R&D), and preferential policies for science and technology (S&T) personnel, Asian governments are improving the quality of their science and ensuring the exploitation of future innovations. The percentage of patents issued to and science journal articles published by scientists in China, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan is rising. Indian companies are quickly becoming the second-largest producers of application services in the world, developing, supplying, and managing database and other types of software for clients around the world. South Korea has rapidly eaten away at the U.S. advantage in the manufacture of computer chips and telecommunications software. And even China has made impressive gains in advanced technologies such as lasers, biotechnology, and advanced materials used in semiconductors, aerospace, and many other types of manufacturing. Although the United States' technical

dominance remains solid, the globalization of research and development is exerting considerable pressures on the American system. Indeed, as the United States is learning, globalization cuts both ways: it is both a potent catalyst of U.S. technological innovation and a significant threat to it. The United States will never be able to prevent rivals from developing new technologies; it can remain dominant only by continuing to innovate faster than everyone else. But this won't be easy; to keep its privileged position in the world, the United States must get better at fostering technological entrepreneurship at home.

D. Hegemony is key to maintaining democracy, free markets and rule of law, preventing proliferation, regional threats by renegade states, global rivals, and a global “cold or hot war” (including nuclear exchange) Zalmay Khalilzad [RAND Corporation], “Losing The Moment?” Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84, 1995 (HEG) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best longterm guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 17 of 32

Hegemony Extensions A. Domestic Access NASA is key to providing domestic access space (and to Florida’s economy) SpaceRef Interactive Inc. [a privately owned and operated company. SpaceRef's 21 news and reference web sites are designed to allow both the novice and specialist alike to explore outer space and Earth observation], “Kosmas Fights Against Cuts to Human Space Exploration”, June 20 2009, http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=28501 (HEG) (Washington, DC) - Today, Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24) defended NASA's human spaceflight program and the thousands of Central Florida jobs it supports by voting against drastic cuts to exploration funding. Kosmas voted no on the FY 2010 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill, which provides only $3.3 billion for exploration, $670 million less than the President's budget request. According to preliminary estimates, the funding included in this bill for exploration could cause additional delays of up to 2 years and increase costs by up to $8 billion due to inefficiencies and loss of key skills and core capabilities. "The funding levels in this bill for NASA's human spaceflight program are simply unacceptable," said Congresswoman Kosmas. "These cuts will cause years of delays and put at risk the highly skilled workforce that is critical to Central Florida's economy and that may not be easily reassembled for future programs. These funding levels could also threaten our national security interests by forcing us to rely even more on Russia for access to space and the International Space Station, sending billions of our taxpayer dollars overseas. I will keep fighting to restore exploration funding before this bill becomes law in order to preserve jobs, support our national security interests, and maintain a robust human spaceflight program." Kosmas and a bipartisan group of legislators, including fellow Space Coast representative, Bill Posey (FL-15), took to the House floor this week to speak out against the cuts and to urge for restoration of human spaceflight funding before the bill becomes law. Kosmas and Posey had previously sent a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging them to reverse the cuts and maintain a robust human spaceflight program. NASA needs funding or human space travel is gone forever Judith H Moore [reporter], "Media Mentions", Reporter [the newspaper of Imperial College London], Issue 132, October 8, 2003 (HEG) The future of space travel Professor Andre Balogh, physics, has warned the future of space travel should not be taken for granted. "The only way that a positive future will be guaranteed is to increase the NASA budget to something like twice its present size," Professor Balogh told the British Association festival of science. "Going to the moon or going to Mars is really science fiction at the moment until we have learned to master the safety and the safe operation and exploitation of lower-earth orbit," he added. Reuters (09/09/03)

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 18 of 32

Hegemony Extensions A. Domestic Access A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy Aerospace America [A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS], June, 1998 (HEG) Space Commercialization: Pushing Ahead in Congress The worldwide commercial space sector has been growing by at least 20 percent annually for the past several years, making it one of the largest industries in the world. The entire space industry recorded revenues of nearly $ 77 billion in 1996 and employed an estimated 835,900 people. Clearly, U .S. leadership and increased growth in the booming global market depends on a commitment to enhance the competitiveness of our industry. The federal government should step up efforts to promote competition and remove obstacles to industry growth and leadership in launch vehicles and space applications such as satellite communications, navigation, and Earth observations as well as in space-related services, information, and other products. For forty years, a strong U.S. civil space program has been a key element in economic competitiveness, international prestige, national security, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. However, new elements have been introduced in national civil space policy, including tighter constraints on federal budgets and an increasing demand for some form of economic return on federal investments. In short, a cooperative relationship between the government and industry should be the cornerstone of any policy. The government invests in science and technology in support of the "public good." On the other hand, industry's main role is to develop and exploit the opportunities for opening new markets generated by the growth of space activities. When presented with an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investment at a reasonable level of risk, industry will provide the capital, manpower, and business, technical, and marketing expertise needed to establish and maintain commercial operations.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 19 of 32

Hegemony Extensions B. Leadership Improved space technology is key to U.S. leadership GlobalSecurity.org [focused on innovative approaches to the emerging security challenges of the new millennium] “A New Space Race Is on the Launch Pad”, BY PETER PAE, Copyright 2002 / Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, August 17, 2002, http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/020817-eelv1.htm (HEG) A powerful new rocket that produces more than 12 times the energy of Hoover Dam's generators is slated to blast off from Cape Canaveral next week, launching a battle for the supremacy of space. In a competition worth as much as $40 billion over the next 20 years, archrivals Boeing Co. and Lockheed Martin Corp. have developed rockets intended to dominate the launch business for satellites and other payloads. The new rocket designs are leading to the most significant overhaul of the U.S. launch system since the 1950s, when aerospace companies began designing ballistic missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. The continued reliance on the old rocket technology has cost the U.S. leadership in the commercial launch business in the last decade, as Western European nations, China and Russia have moved aggressively into the market. In recent decades, the Pentagon and NASA have faltered in efforts to create advanced-technology space launchers that would dramatically reduce costs. Former NASA chief Dan Goldin lamented to Congress in 1996 that the space community "should hang its head in shame" over its failure to protect U.S. leadership in space. After many false starts, the U.S. finally has two new rocket models, both boasting more power than any rocket developed since the Saturn V launched three men to the moon more than three decades ago. The rockets' launch costs would range from $100 million to $150 million, significantly less than the current generation of vehicles. The Air Force would use the new rockets to launch satellites for spying, weather forecasting, communications, navigation and other experimental purposes. Although the rockets are funded by the military for its own missions, commercial versions could help the U.S. recover business that has been lost to Arianespace, a European aerospace company. NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key. Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review], “NASA and soft power, again”, The Space Review, June 15, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG) As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters in Washington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part of America’s image at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agency accomplished 40 years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling us that “We choose to go to the Moon.” It is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol of the idea that America represents a technologically advanced and optimistic future. It’s easy to belittle this as just PR fluff. What is often misunderstood is the source of soft power. It is more than just prestige—though that is a part of it—but it flows naturally from real achievements. It is built on a foundation of hard power, the ability of a nation to set ambitious goals and then to realize them.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 20 of 32

Hegemony Extensions B. Leadership Soft power is key to hegemony Sankar Sen [Former Director for the Indian National Police Academy], “AMERICAN POWER: How Long Will It Last?” The Statesman, April 5, 2005 (HEG) Indeed anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, antiAmericanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and may gradually affect American pre-eminence. Space superiority is key to military hegemony General Lance W. Lord [Commander of Air Force Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado], Published in High Frontier [The Journal for Space & Missile Professionals], Volume 1, Number 3, "Space Superiority", Page 5, United States Air Force Space Command, Winter 2005 (HEG) Space power today is at a similar point as airpower was im- mediately following World War I. We have employed space in combat and there is no doubt as to its importance. Just as the fathers of airpower devoted great effort to developing doctrine and theory to take full advantage of the air medium, we must continue to develop doctrine for space power. We have learned many lessons from recent operations, but the work has just be- gun. We must develop the most effective means of providing command and control for our Space Control systems. The intel- ligence infrastructure to support the “how” and “why” pieces of Space Situation Awareness must be fully developed. We must continue to instill the Defensive Counterspace mindset in every operator as well as develop and refine tactics, techniques and procedures to more effectively employ our space capabilities. Space Superiority is the future of warfare. We cannot win a war without controlling the high ground, and the high ground is space. In future wars, gaining and maintaining space superior- ity will be equally as important as air superiority, so we must begin work now to ensure we maintain the high ground. Our doctrine and strategy for achieving space superiority are critical to realizing the full benefit of our systems and technology.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 21 of 32

Impact: Global Warming A. NASA funding key to weather research in the atmosphere Statement of Bruce Carmichael [Ph.D. Director, Aviation Applications Program Research Applications Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research] Before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology, 29 March 2007, Hearing on JDPO and the Next Generation Air Transportation System: Status and Issues, Pages 7-8, http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/carmichael_testimony%203-07.pdf (HEG) The FAA is requesting substantial funding to support wake turbulence research to help increase capacity while maintaining safety. This will help us to safely reduce separation distances between aircraft, support the efficient use of closely spaced parallel runways, and allow airports to operate closer to their design capacity. NASA has a long track record of partnership with the FAA in this research area. Wake turbulence is viewed by the JPDO as a weather issue, and is part of the planning process for the weather team. In large part, this is because of the critical importance of the weather connection when predicting wake turbulence behavior. Wake turbulence is a research activity that is in need of significant JPDO attention to rationalize the activities of the various agencies. Uncertainty of NASA's funding and lack of integration with the rest of the weather community in this area is creating difficulty in coordinated weather research planning. Research

in use of unmanned aircraft systems as platforms for targeted observations of the atmosphere offers considerable promise to improve forecasts in high value areas with sparse observations. NextGen needs to explore the integration of unmanned aircraft observing systems into the National Airspace System. This research is a natural fit for NASA, but programs in this area have disappeared. In conclusion, aviation weather research is vital to the successful development and implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Most of the technology needed to implement NextGen is already relatively mature. Weather remains an area with significant issues that need to be addressed if the nation is to successfully integrate aviation weather into the Next Generation Air Transportation System. All relevant agencies and laboratories must be brought to bear on these difficult problems if we are to achieve success. Current changes to NASA's aeronautics program are having a significant negative impact on the effectiveness of the aviation weather integration initiative.

B. That places the climate program in jeopardy – means we can’t deal with warming Patriot News, June 15, 2007 [accessed via LexisNexis] (HEG) Other questionable decisions include dramatically scaled-back efforts to measure global warming from space. Technology glitches and a near-doubling in the original $6.5 billion cost, The Associated Press reported, moved the Defense Department to reduce the number and delay the launch of satellites collecting weather and climate data. Consequently, the new satellites will be used primarily for weather forecasting and the U.S. will rely on European satellites for climate-related information. NOAA and NASA scientists told the White House in December that "the recent

loss of climate sensors ... places the overall climate program in serious jeopardy." The result is that there will be a major loss of data that only can be collected by satellite about ice caps and sheets, surface levels of seas and lakes, sizes of glaciers, surface radiation, water vapor, snow cover and atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to AP. This comes at a time when both the problem of global warming and efforts to deal with it are reaching critical mass. The administration and Congress need to find a way to fund these vital scientific-information-gathering satellites, recognizing that avoiding unnecessary spending and eliminating deficit spending are major priorities in their own right. Indeed, the government has few expenses greater than paying the interest on the national debt -- $406 billion last year. By comparison, NASA's entire budget amounts to $15 billion and

spending on global warming in recent years has averaged about $5 billion annually. Obviously, the government needs to set priorities. But if protecting people and property from hurricanes, and learning all we can about what is potentially one of the greatest changes to affect the planet in recorded history, doesn't fall in the category of highest priority, then we all are in trouble. And we all eventually are going to pay for this misplaced frugality.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 22 of 32

Impact: Global Warming C. Global warming rips the fabric of our biosphere apart, destroying nature and our very race John J. Berger [helped launch the environmental restoration movement in 1985 with his book Restoring the Earth: How Americans Are Working to Renew Our Damaged Environment. He also founded and directed the nonprofit Restoring the Earth, Inc., which worked to advance the cause of environmental restoration via public education and environmental policy development. Dr. Berger has authored and edited eight books on energy and environmental issues and is a long-time supporter of alternative energy solutions to global environmental problems. Former scientific consultant to the National Research Council: he helped to design, write, and edit the Council's highly acclaimed national study, The Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystem: Science, Technology, and Public Policy (1990) that put aquatic ecosystem restoration more prominently in the public eye and higher on the U.S. Department of the Interior's agenda. Member of the American Association of Journalists and Authors. His magazine articles have appeared in: Audubon, Omni, The Boston Globe, The Village Voice, The Los Angeles Times Magazine, The Christian Science Monitor, The San Francisco Examiner, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, in anthologies, book club selections, foreign editions, and via news service syndication. He has edited books for the University of California Press and for Straight Arrow Books and has been a scientific and technical editor at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the head of an editorial group at the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development. He has also been a newspaper and press service editor and edited Environmental Restoration: Science and Strategies for Restoring the Earth (Island Press, 1990). Former visiting Associate Professor of

Environmental Policy at the Graduate School of Public Affairs of the University of Maryland and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Science at the University of San Francisco. He has a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of California, Davis, a M.S. in Energy and Natural Resources from the University of California, Berkeley, and a B.A. in political science from Stanford University. Awards: He was chosen to participate in a summer study program at the Roscoe B. Jackson Memorial Laboratory for Genetic Research; he was the recipient of a Switzer Foundation Environmental Fellowship for graduate study, he received a year-long fellowship for graduate study at the University of Tunis, Tunisia, and was awarded a summer writing fellowship at the Blue Mountain Center in the Adirondacks], “Beating the Heat Why and How We Must Combat Global Warming”, Pages 10-11, Publisher: Berkeley Hills Books; 1st edition (May 15, 2000), ISBN-10: 1893163059, ISBN-13: 978-1893163058

Although unable to make exact predictions, scientists believe that our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide levelis likely to double over the next hundred years. With that doubling, the world’s average temperature is likely to increase 2- 6 degrees F. Then again, without corrective action, carbon dioxide levels might even triple by the year 2100. That could raise the world’s temperature by 8 or 90F. While that may not sound like much—after all, temperature can easily swing 300F in a day—an average world temperature change of 90F is all that separates today’s benign climate from an Ice Age, when the place you now live may have been buried under two miles of ice. Even if our production of airborne carbon is significantly reduced between now and 2100, global warming will not halt on January 1, 2101. Once disrupted, climate processes remain disturbed for hundreds of years. The oceans, for example, take centuries to release accumulated heat, and carbon we put in the air today remains there for up to 200 years, continuing to warm the planet. As the Earth’s temperature rises, its living systems will inevitably be disrupted. If you are not sure why we should care if a few more species go extinct, remember that nature is an interconnected fabric. Poke enough holes in it, tear it, yank on it hard enough, and it will rip. Once in ruins, it is very difficult and costly to mend, and the services it was unobtrusively providing are suddenly in jeopardy or gone. These include services like purifying our air, cleaning our water, maintaining our soil, keeping pests in check, pollinating our crops, and providing us with the biodiversity from which medicines come. Of course, nature also offers us knowledge and insights about ourselves as an integral part of creation. If we destroy nature, we eventually destroy ourselves.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 23 of 32

Impact: Soft Power A. NASA is the lynchpin of U.S. soft power – budget support is key. Taylor Dinerman [Author and Journalist for Forbes.com Inc, Editor, President and Publisher of SpaceEquity.com, a Part-time Consultant for the US Dept. of Defense, Writer, Columnist, and Space Analyst for The Space Review], “NASA and soft power, again”, The Space Review, June 15, 2009, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1396/1 (HEG) As we embark on yet another NASA budgetary roller coaster ride, courtesy of our political masters in Washington, it may be time to step back and examine why NASA is such an important part of America’s image at home and abroad. It is not simply the memories of what the space agency accomplished 40 years ago, and the still-haunting black and white film of John F. Kennedy telling us that “We choose to go to the Moon.” It is more than that. The human spaceflight program is a symbol of the idea that America represents a technologically advanced and optimistic future. It’s easy to belittle this as just PR fluff. What is often misunderstood is the source of soft power. It is more than just prestige—though that is a part of it—but it flows naturally from real achievements. It is built on a foundation of hard power, the ability of a nation to set ambitious goals and then to realize them. B. Soft Power is key to providing foreign talent, preventing anti-Americanism and terrorism, maintaining international influence, reducing proliferation, disease, human and drug trafficking JOSHUA KURLANTZICK [Current History contributing editor. Special correspondent for The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment], CURRENT HISTORY, “The Decline of American Soft Power”, Vol. 104, Issue 686, Pages 423-424, December 2005 (HEG) A broad decline in soft power has many practical implications. These include the drain in foreign tal- ent coming to the United States, the potential back- lash against American companies, the growing attractiveness of China and Europe, and the possi- bility that anti-US sentiment will make it easier for terrorist groups to recruit. In addition, with a decline in soft power, Washington is simply less able to per- suade others. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration could not convince Turkey, a longtime US ally, to play a major staging role, in part because America’s image in Turkey was so poor. During the war itself, the United States has failed to obtain significant participation from all but a hand- ful of major nations, again in part because of Amer- ica’s negative image in countries ranging from India to Germany. In attempts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons, Washington has had to allow China to play a central role, partly because few Asian states view the United States as a neutral, legitimate broker in the talks. Instead, Washington must increasingly resort to the other option Nye discusses—force, or the threat of force. With foreign governments and publics sus- picious of American policy, the White House has been

unable to lead a multinational effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program, and instead has had to resort to threatening sanctions at the United Nations or even the possibility of strikes against Iran. With America’s image declining in nations like Thailand and Pakistan, it is harder for leaders in these countries to openly embrace counterterrorism cooperation with the United States, so Washington resorts to quiet arm-twisting and blandishments to obtain counterterror concessions. Force is not a long-term solution. Newer, non- traditional security threats such as disease, human trafficking, and drug trafficking can only be man- aged through forms of multilateral cooperation that depend on America’s ability to persuade other nations. Terrorism itself cannot be defeated by force alone, a fact that even the White House recognizes. The 2002 National Security Strategy emphasizes that winning the war on terror requires the United States to lead a battle of ideas against the ideologi- cal roots of terrorism, in addition to rooting out and destroying individual militant cells.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 24 of 32

Impact: Economy A. NASA funding is key to the economy K.C. Jones, “Proposed NASA Cuts Draw Fire”, InformationWeek, June 8, 2009, http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/federal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800116 (HEG)

Democratic Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas and Republican Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to their colleagues Monday urging restoration of the funds. Both representatives are from Florida, where NASA's Kennedy Space Center has a major impact on jobs and the economy. "Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in our state and across the nation," they wrote. "In 2008, the U.S. space industry contributed approximately $100 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employed more than 262,000 people in 41 states at skill levels and pay scales far above national averages according to the Department of Labor." They said that, in Florida, every NASA job translates into 2.82 more jobs, which, in fiscal year 2008 gave Florida $4.1 billion in output, $2.1 billion of household income, and 40,802 jobs. "With the second-highest job loss numbers in the nation in 2008, maintaining current jobs in Florida and ensuring future work at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) represents a road to economic recovery for Florida and our nation," they said. B. Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict Walter Russell Mead [Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], New Perspective Quarterly, p. 30, Summer 1992 (HEG) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depressionwill open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 25 of 32

Economy Extensions A. NASA A strong space program is key to US hegemony and the economy Aerospace America [A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS], June, 1998 (HEG) Space Commercialization: Pushing Ahead in Congress The worldwide commercial space sector has been growing by at least 20 percent annually for the past several years, making it one of the largest industries in the world. The entire space industry recorded revenues of nearly $ 77 billion in 1996 and employed an estimated 835,900 people. Clearly, U .S. leadership and increased growth in the booming global market depends on a commitment to enhance the competitiveness of our industry. The federal government should step up efforts to promote competition and remove obstacles to industry growth and leadership in launch vehicles and space applications such as satellite communications, navigation, and Earth observations as well as in space-related services, information, and other products. For forty years, a strong U.S. civil space program has been a key element in economic competitiveness, international prestige, national security, and humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. However, new elements have been introduced in national civil space policy, including tighter constraints on federal budgets and an increasing demand for some form of economic return on federal investments. In short, a cooperative relationship between the government and industry should be the cornerstone of any policy. The government invests in science and technology in support of the "public good." On the other hand, industry's main role is to develop and exploit the opportunities for opening new markets generated by the growth of space activities. When presented with an opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investment at a reasonable level of risk, industry will provide the capital, manpower, and business, technical, and marketing expertise needed to establish and maintain commercial operations.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 26 of 32

Economy Extensions B. Impact Economic collapse would escalate to full-scale nuclear conflict T. E. Bearden [LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), CEO, CTEC Inc. Director, Association of Distinguished American Scientists (ADAS), Fellow Emeritus, Alpha Foundation's Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS)], “The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly”, June 12, 2000 (HEG) International Strategic Threat Aspects History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {i} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China — whose long range nuclear missiles can reach the United States — attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all, is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs, with a great percent of the WMD arsenals being unleashed . The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 27 of 32

Impact: No Mo’ Space Colonization A. NASA is key to accessing international cooperation on space colonization and the space market Canwest Global Communications Corp. [Canada's largest media company], "Tourism, mining out of this world", © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc., June 1, 2007, http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a903ff6c-e58c-400b-b492-72a29c9bbc40 (HEG) The Global Exploration Strategy, released Thursday by the Canadian Space Agency and 13 other organizations, spells out what officials are calling their shared vision for space exploration and colonization. The strategy makes no mention of the enormous costs involved, but says agency officials have agreed after months of negotiation to co-ordinate their ambitious plans. "With increasing intent and determination, we are resolved to explore our nearest companions -- the Moon, Mars and some nearby asteroids," the strategy says. "Our goal is not a few quick visits, but rather a sustained and ultimately self-sufficient human presence beyond Earth supported by robotic pathfinders." The document outlines the rationale for returning to the Moon and exploring Mars, noting it is fundamental human nature to explore the unknown. The agencies, notorious for incurring cost overruns on such projects as the international space station, also make reference to economic opportunities related to the plan. "Already, far-sighted entrepreneurs are thinking about further commercial expansion into space," says the report, pointing to opportunities for companies to provide crew and cargo transportation services, telecommunications and navigation systems, and space-based resource extraction and processing capabilities. Moon rocks are rich in oxygen that might be exploited to provide life-support systems for lunar operations, and be used to produce liquid oxygen rocket propellant, which might be more economical to manufacture in space than to ship from Earth. Mining the Moon might also yield titanium, a strong light metal favoured for high-end aerospace applications, and helium-3, which could prove valuable if fusion reactors ever become feasible, it says. The agencies also foresee plenty more opportunity for commercial space tourism, both real and virtual. "New telecommunications and robotic innovations create the prospect of offering customers on Earth a 'virtual presence' on the Moon or Mars," it says. "For those who yearn to experience the real thing, sub-orbital spaceflight is on the verge of becoming reality. The future may also hold Earth-orbiting space hotels and excursions to the Moon." The report describes the Moon as a "second home" in the solar system. "Just three days from Earth, the Moon has low gravity and natural resources that make it an ideal location to prepare people and machines for venturing farther into space." But Mars, with both water and other similarities to Earth, "is the place in the solar system where human life could most likely be sustained in the future," says the report, noting the decision to attempt a human journey to Mars is still years away. The agencies have agreed to try to establish a framework for co-ordinating the implementation of the space exploration strategy and to exchange information and identify gaps, duplication and potential areas for collaboration. NASA, the U.S. space agency, describes it as "an important step in an evolving process towards a comprehensive global approach to space exploration."

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 28 of 32

Impact: No Mo’ Space Colonization B. The future of an earthbound human race holds a bleak future of inevitable extinction – only colonizing space can enable the possibility of surviving in the long term – it’s do or die Jason G. Matheny [Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation, evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344, Published Online: 7 Dec 2007, ©2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis], DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00960.x (HEG) 2. HUMANITY'S LIFE EXPECTANCY We have some influence over how long we can delay human extinction. Cosmology dictates the upper limit but leaves a large field of play. At its lower limit, humanity could be extinguished as soon as this century by succumbing to near-term extinction risks: nuclear detonations, asteroid or comet impacts, or volcanic eruptions could generate enough atmospheric debris to terminate food production; a nearby supernova or gamma ray burst could sterilize Earth with deadly radiation; greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a positive feedback loop, causing a radical change in climate; a genetically engineered microbe could be unleashed, causing a global plague; or a high-energy physics experiment could go awry, creating a "true vacuum" or strangelets that destroy the planet (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farther out in time are risks from technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed in the next century or centuries. For instance, self-replicating nanotechnologies could destroy the ecosystem; and cognitive enhancements or recursively self-improving computers could exceed normal human ingenuity to create uniquely powerful weapons (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Ikle, 2006 ; Joy, 2000 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farthest out in time are astronomical risks. In one billion years, the sun will begin its red giant stage, increasing terrestrial temperatures above 1,000 degrees, boiling off our atmosphere, and eventually forming a planetary nebula, making Earth inhospitable to life (Sackmann, Boothroyd, & Kraemer, 1993 ; Ward & Brownlee, 2002 ). If we colonize other solar systems, we could survive longer than our sun, perhaps another 100 trillion years, when all stars begin burning out (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ). We might survive even longer if we exploit nonstellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how humanity will survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ).3 Physics seems to support Kafka's remark that "[t]here is infinite hope, but not for us." While it may be physically possible for humanity or its descendents to flourish for 1041 years, it seems unlikely that humanity will live so long. Homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Our closest relative, homo erectus, existed for around 1.8 million years (Anton, 2003 ). The median duration of mammalian species is around 2.2 million years (Avise et al., 1998 ).

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 29 of 32

Space Colonization Extensions Space colonization solves extinction Gregg Maryniak [former Vice President of the Space Studies Institute, Chief Operating Officer for the XPRIZE Foundation, Juris Doctor from Northwestern, winner of the Tsiolkovsky Medal] Christian Science Monitor, “How Space Colonies Could Benefit From Earth”, 1992 (HEG) Space colonization means much more than Antarctic-style research habitats on the moon or other planets for an elite group of astronauts. Space can be colonized and provide Earth with the equivalent of the New World that Columbus "discovered" in the 15th century. Space colonies can supply clean energy necessary for human survival in the 21st century. In addition, they can provide new homelands and an expanded ecological niche for our species. For many people, the term "space colony" brings to mind visions of domed cities on the moon or the surface of a hostile planet. Since September 1974, however, the words have had a very different meaning. That month's issue of Physics Today contained an article by Princeton University professor and nuclear physicist Gerard K. O'Neill entitled, "The Colonization of Space." Dr. O'Neill proposed construction of large-scale habitats built in free space rather than on the surface of planets. (See interview, Page 17.) Building the structures in space would allow the inhabitants to select whatever gravity level they desired by controlling the rate of rotation of the habitat. O'Neill showed that even if relatively simple materials such as steel cables were used in colony construction, habitat cylinders of up to 20 miles (32 kilometers) in length and 4 miles (6.4 kilometers) in diameter could be built to house up to 1 million people under comfortable conditions. Early habitats would be much smaller, with populations of hundreds or thousands. Each habitat would have provisions for agriculture and closed-cycle life support so that once a colony is established, very little outside material would be required to sustain it.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 30 of 32

Impact: Blitzkrieg and/or Spartaaaaa! NASA is key to prevent extinction: comets, nuclear threats, nukes, bioterrorism, an aging sun Jason G. Matheny [Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation, evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA

from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344, Published Online: 7 Dec 2007, ©2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis], DOI: 10.1111/j.15396924.2007.00960.x (HEG)

4. REDUCING EXTINCTION RISK We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. NASA spends $4 million per year monitoring near-Earth asteroids and comets (Leary, 2007 ) and there has been some research on how to deflect these objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle, 2004 ; NASA, 2007 ). $1.7 billion is spent researching climate change and there are many strategies to reduce carbon emissions (Posner, 2004 , p. 181).

There are policies to reduce nuclear threats, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as well as efforts to secure expertise by employing former nuclear scientists. Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006 ; Williams, 2006 ). 5 Current U.S. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006 ). There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks. As

for astronomical risks, to escape our sun's death, humanity will eventually need to relocate. If we survive the next century, we are likely to build self-sufficient colonies in space. We would be motivated by selfinterest to do so, as asteroids, moons, and planets have valuable resources to mine, and the technological requirements for colonization are not beyond imagination (Kargel, 1994 ; Lewis, 1996 ). Colonizing space sooner, rather than later, could reduce extinction risk (Gott, 1999 ; Hartmann, 1984 ; Leslie, 1999 ), as a species' survivability is closely related to the extent of its range (Hecht, 2006 ). Citing, in particular, the threat of new biological weapons, Stephen Hawking has said, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet" (Highfield, 2001 ). Similarly, NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin (2006) , recently remarked: "The history of life on Earth is the history of extinction events, and human expansion into the Solar System is, in the end, fundamentally about the survival of the species." Perhaps more cost effective than building refuges in space would be building them on Earth. Elaborate bunkers exist for government leaders to occupy during a nuclear war (McCamley, 2007 ). And remote facilities are planned to protect crop seeds from "nuclear war, asteroid strikes, and climate change" (Hopkin, 2007 ). But I know of no self-sufficient, remote, permanently occupied refuge meant to protect humanity from a range of possible extinction events. Hanson (2007) argues that a refuge permanently housing as few as 100 people would significantly improve the chances of human survival during a range of global catastrophes. The Americas and Polynesia were originally populated by fewer than 100 founders (Hey, 2005 ; Murray-McIntosh et al., 1998 ). Although it would take thousands of years for 100 people to repopulate Earth, this would be a small setback compared to extinction.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 31 of 32

AT: China gets mad China supports space exploration – they won’t oppose the results of it Xinhua News Agency, “Chinese Expert Deeply Regrets Tragic Incident of Columbia”, February 2, 2003, http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/54970.htm (HEG) Chen Maozhang, member of Chinese Academy of Engineering, on Sunday deeply regretted the tragic incident of US space shuttle Columbia, saying such incident would not shake the mankind's space exploration program. Chen, who also serves as professor of Beihang University (the original University of Aeronautic and Astronautic Science and Technology in China), told Xinhua that the mankind's space exploration is a great cause that would suffer various setbacks. "But the mankind will not give up the dream of space exploration. Facing the setbacks, the mankind need to find out thecause of the accident and make improvement," he added. US space shuttle Columbia broke apart into flames as it streaked over Texas toward its landing strip at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Saturday, killing all seven astronauts. Six Americans and the first Israeli astronaut were on board. Four of the seven astronauts were on their first shuttle flight.

Will Malson

NASA Funding Tradeoff (Politics)

Page 32 of 32

AT: Free market would solve Privatization causes more accidents and deaths from space travel Terence Corcoran [editor and columnist for the Financial Post section of the Toronto-based National Post], National Post, “Go further, faster without NASA”, February 4, 2003 (HEG) This is not to suggest that space exploration run by a competitive private sector would be free of tragedy and death. There would be, one must assume, even more deaths and setbacks in a privatized space industry. As more companies, explorers, scientists and adventurers take up the challenge and launch new experiments, the risks will increase. Because NASA is a giant state institution, it takes on giant and obsessive preoccupations. NASA's expanding projects commandeer huge multi-billion-dollar appropriations that draw more political scrutiny. As the scrutiny intensifies, the agency develops an obsessive and excessive preoccupation with safety. NASA officials stop just short of claiming that their objective is zero tolerance for human casualties, an absurd concept in something as inherently risky as space exploration. Almost as many people died in the routine business of building high -rise condos in downtown Toronto over the past year as perished in the sensational destruction of the Columbia.