privatization cp - wikispacessnfi.wikispaces.com/file/view/privatization+cp+final.docx · web...

Privatization CP SNFI 2011SNFI Privates

Privatization CP ***COUNTERPLANS***:***NASA PHASEOUT CP***................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31NC........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4CP SOLVES (GENERAL)....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5NASA BAD (GENERAL)......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7NASA BAD, PRIVATE GOOD (COMPARATIVE)................................................................................................................................................................... 8NASA BAD – LAUNDRY LIST.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11NASA BAD – LUNAR MISSIONS BAD................................................................................................................................................................................. 12RESTRUCTURING SOLVES............................................................................................................................................................................................... 13BUYING DATA SOLVES...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14SOLVES – AT GOVT K/T LONG-TERM INITIATIVES......................................................................................................................................................... 15AT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR NASA...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16AT LIABILITY DISCOURAGES INVESTMENT..................................................................................................................................................................... 17AT MOON TREATY=NO SOLVENCY.................................................................................................................................................................................. 18AT GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................................................................................... 19AT NO PROFIT MOTIVE...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20AT NO PRIVATE SECTOR $$.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 21AT LAUNCH COSTS TOO EXPENSIVE.............................................................................................................................................................................. 22AT INTL LAW = NO PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT.................................................................................................................................................................. 23AT POPERTY RIGHTS......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25AT CP KILLS NASA JOBS................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26SOLVES – COLONIZATION................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27SOLVES – CONSTELLATION.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 28SOLVES – ECONOMY......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29SOLVES – LEADERSHIP..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30SOLVES – LUNAR MISSIONS............................................................................................................................................................................................. 31SOLVES – LUNAR MINING................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33SOLVES – MARS................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35SOLVES – MICROSATELLITES.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 36SOLVES – MODELING........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 37SOLVES – SOLAR SAILS.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38SOLVES – SPS.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39SOLVES – TRANSPORT/TOURISM.................................................................................................................................................................................... 40POLITICS = NB.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 44BIPART SUPPORT............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 45GINGRICH <3 CP................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46GOP <3 CP........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47TEA PARTY <3 CP............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48COERCION = NB................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49***Prizes CP***..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 511NC....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52Solves – NASA..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53Solves – General.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57Solves – Mars Missions........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61Solves – Lunar Missions....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62Solves – Lunar Missions/Mining........................................................................................................................................................................................... 65Solves – Lunar Mining.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66Solves – SPS........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67Solvency – Rollback.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 68Solves Economy/Innovation.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69Solves Innovation................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 71AT CP Spends Money/No NB............................................................................................................................................................................................... 72Politics = NB......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 74A2: No Spending NB............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 75***Space Settlement Prize CP***.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 761NC....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 77Solves – General.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 78Solves – Tourism.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 80

Privatization CPSolves – Modeling................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 81Politics/Spending = Net Benefit............................................................................................................................................................................................ 82

1


AT: CP Fails – No Modeling.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 83AT: Land Grants Don’t Solve................................................................................................................................................................................................ 84AT: CP Causes Conflict........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 85AT: OST Stops CP................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 86FYI – What SSPA Contains.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 87

***NET BENEFITS******Arms Race Net Benefit***................................................................................................................................................................................................. 89Arms Race—1NC................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 90Arms Race—Link Ext............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 92Arms Race—Space War Turns Case................................................................................................................................................................................... 94Arms Race—Free Market CP Solves.................................................................................................................................................................................... 95***USSG Net Benefit***......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 96USSG—1NC......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97USSG—Space Capacity (General)....................................................................................................................................................................................... 98USSG—Space Capacity/Security......................................................................................................................................................................................... 99USSG—Econ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 100USSG—Commercial Conflicts:........................................................................................................................................................................................... 101USSG—Hard Power........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 102AT USSG Doesn’t Get Created.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 103***Coercion Net Benefit***.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 104Coercion—1NC................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 105Coercion—Link-NASA........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 106Coercion—Link-Spending................................................................................................................................................................................................... 108Coercion—Link-Government Action.................................................................................................................................................................................... 109Coercion—Link-Science Control......................................................................................................................................................................................... 110Coercion—Impact-War....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112Coercion—Impact-Linear.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 113Coercion—Impact-Scientific Control Bad............................................................................................................................................................................ 114Coercion—Impact-Atrocities............................................................................................................................................................................................... 115Coercion—Impact-Value to Life.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 116Coercion—Impact-D-Rule................................................................................................................................................................................................... 117Coercion—Impact-Turns Case........................................................................................................................................................................................... 118AT: CP Links to Coercion.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 119AT :Libertarianism Flawed.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 120

***TOPICALITY***1NC T – “Its”....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 121

***AFF ANSWERS***Privatization Fails – General............................................................................................................................................................................................... 122Privatization Fails – I-Law................................................................................................................................................................................................... 124Privatization Fails – Jobs.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 125Privatization Fails – Laundry List........................................................................................................................................................................................ 126Privatization Fails – Leadership.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 127Privatization Fails – No Investment..................................................................................................................................................................................... 128Privatization Fails – Bill Fails.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 129Privatization Fails – No Investors........................................................................................................................................................................................ 130Privatization Fails – Space Heg.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131Privatization Fails – War..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133Privatization Links to Arms Races....................................................................................................................................................................................... 134Privatization Links to Coercion............................................................................................................................................................................................ 136Privatization Links to Politics............................................................................................................................................................................................... 137Privatization Links to Arms Races....................................................................................................................................................................................... 139AT Brown (CP Solves Arms Race)..................................................................................................................................................................................... 140AT Space Guard NB........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 141

Privatization CPPrivatization Doesn’t Solve Mars Exploration..................................................................................................................................................................... 142Privatization Doesn’t Solve Space Tourism........................................................................................................................................................................ 143Prizes Fail........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 144Prizes Links to Politics........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 145AT: Space Lobby Supports CP........................................................................................................................................................................................... 146AT: Space Settlement Act CP............................................................................................................................................................................................. 147AT: Net Benefits.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 150

2


Perm Solvency.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 151AT: Space Tourism............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 156AT: Coercion....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1571AR Ext. – Aff = Prerequisite.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1601AR Ext. – Economic Collapse........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1611AR Ext. – Extinction O/Ws................................................................................................................................................................................................ 162

NASA PHASEOUT CP

3


1NC CP Text: The United States federal government should restrict the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to only allow activities that occur beyond the Earth-Moon system, bar NASA from building and operating launch vehicles and lunar exploration equipment, require all other nondefense and nonemergency launches and lunar exploration equipment to be purchased from the private sector, and enforce the Commercial Space Act Requirement that NASA must acquire scientific data from private firms.

NASA should be phased out- the private industry has both the demand and the resources to succeed in space. Tumlinson, 2005 [Rick, co-founder of the Space Frontier Foundation, “Private Industry Can Help NASA Open the Space Frontier”, Feb. 14, 2005, http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/16279-Privatization-of-Space) NHThere are three initiatives from 2004 that if built upon the right way will rapidly accelerate the human breakout into space. The first was U.S. President George W. Bush's vision of permanent human presence beyond Earth orbit, which was endorsed by congressional funding and clarified by the Aldridge Commission. The second was the flight of SpaceShipOne, the first major triumph of the new space movement and its goal of opening space to the people. This was solidified by a multi-million-dollar contract from Virgin Galactic to build a fleet of commercial spaceships. Finally, the passage of legislation in Congress that begins to create re gulatory certainty in the New Space transportation field clears the way for the long-term development of this nascent industry. Thus we have both a mandate for our government to explore and open space to permanent habitation, and the birth of a private sector space industry which can power, sustain and capitalize that expansion of our civilization beyond the Earth. But of course, this means they will have to work together, which is a bigger challenge than the physical act of opening space itself. But I believe it can be done with benefits to all.

4

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/16279-Privatization-of-Space


However, there is one point that needs to be made early in this discussion that clearly is not understood by the traditional space establishment. I believe the new space frontier movement can survive and even begin the opening of space completely on its own, even if NASA vanished tomorrow . I am not expressing a desire, just a reality that should be part of all future discussions of national space policy. Momentum is building, and the funneling of several independent fortunes into the cause is creating networks of mutual support and interest. For example, we will soon witness the launch of Bigelow Aerospace hotel test articles on a SpaceX rocket. Projecting this trend further, we arrive at another critical milestone on the way to an open frontier, when the first private space facility is serviced and supported entirely by a private transport firm or firms. This is a real take-off point, for when this happens if we should lose the government space program entirely the frontier will still be at hand. I am not stretching reality. At some point in the next 10 years the private sector will attain the ability to transport relatively large numbers of people and payloads to and from low Earth orbit on its own, to house them while they are in orbit and to develop the infrastructure needed for industrial development. This part of the frontier formula is simple: Transportation + Destination = Habitation + Exploitation + Industrialization. As SpaceX and Bigelow begin to develop their infrastructure, Richard Branson, who created Virgin Galactic, will have been flying suborbital commercial space flights for years, as will have Jeff Bezos, the Amazon.com founder who just announced a new commercial spaceport in West Texas. Branson and Burt Rutan, the man behind SpaceshipOne, already have said they want to go to orbit and even beyond, as do Bigelow and Bezos, including trips to and around the Moon. Again, this is serious stuff. I am not wildly chanting L-5 in '95 as the early followers of the late Gerard O'Neill of the Space Studies Institute in their naivete used to do. I am not betting on some pie-in-the-sky magic product like Iridium and the mythical little Leo constellations to fund start up rocket companies. I am certainly not betting on some magic government X vehicle like the X-33 space goose. These new O'Neillians have their own money, their own business models and the ability to finance what they are doing all by themselves. The new imperative that must be faced by our government space leaders is not just to carry out a formal national mandate, and do so on a tight budget, but to maintain their relevance in a field that may well be moving faster than they are. How does NASA justify its intention to spend tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to build what will probably be a far less efficient space transportation system than what the commercial space industry is developing for its own purposes. Look at the contrasts. Bigelow is assuming that his $50 million dollar America's Prize will result in a safe and reusable passenger capsule for roundtrips between Earth and low Earth orbit. NASA is expecting to spend over $10 billion dollars to develop the same sort of capability . Yes, Bigelow expects the winner to spend far more than the actual prize amount based on hopes of follow-on markets; and yes, the winning capsule will have fewer bells and whistles that anything NASA builds, but the magnitude of difference in the development costs is ridiculous. NASA, the White House and Congress are being driven more by the power of traditional aerospace lobbying and the need to maintain political constituencies than practical and common sense understanding of the changes at hand . NASA must be made to grasp this now and stop all of its current plans for the Moon/Mars initiative, or it will fail. Although the current Crew Exploration Vehicle plans incorporate a very small wedge of new space players, the new White House space transportation policy and the bulk of U.S. government funding is still targeted at the old space industry. How do self- and investor-funded innovators compete against government subsidized systems? How does this help America compete in global markets in the long run? The government is ignoring the need to grow a wide-ranging and robust space transportation and low Earth orbit industrial base to support all of our activities from here to the Moon in favor of drawing up monster space vehicles such as a new heavy-lift launcher. They want to be able to toss giant elements of government-designed space facilities and craft into orbit all at once, a la Saturn 5. This may have been necessary when we were in a race to the Moon, but a much wiser, long-term solution now would be to use smaller vehicles over time to get the people and infrastructure to where they are needed. If the goal is to have a thriving Earth-Moon-Mars economy as an end point, it makes sense to begin creating the low Earth orbit anchorage and industrial port element as early as possible. Pay for delivery contracts and prizes tied to tax incentives for investment in space transportation would greatly accelerate the growth of New Space transportation systems. On orbit assembly would teach us how to really operate in space, while developing expertise and potentially profitable orbital businesses. Fuel depots in space could be developed now using new space and old space transportation systems to fill them and preparing a technology base for the day when we begin to harvest and refine propellants from space resources. Breaking payloads down into small elements expands the pie greatly. It also mimics how we do things on Earth, which seems to have worked very well so far. If handled the right way, even the dinosaurs of aerospace could be coaxed into evolving or spinning off innovative space transportation divisions to service this new mixed private- and public-sector market. After all, Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop Grumman are not doing their stockholders any favors by clinging to a dying market, when an expanding frontier-based market would not only be potentially huge, but by definition infinite. The president has said we should go back to the Moon and on to Mars, this

CP SOLVES (GENERAL) CP Solves- the private sector creates a sustainable industry and drives down the costs for space exploration.Fong, 2010 [Kevin, Co-director of the Centre for Aviation Space and Extreme Environment Medicine, Senior lecturer in physiology -- University College London, “To boldly go to a commercial space age,” 4-16, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/16/nasa-apollo-private-industry-commercial] NH But the space exploration paradigm has moved on since the days of Apollo. Nasa's budget, as a fraction of the country's GDP, is an order of magnitude less than it was around the time of those missions. Gone are the days when things could move so quickly or command such resource. From Kennedy's utterance of the words "before this decade is out" to Armstrong's historic small step, took eight years. No Nasa programme of recent times has proved anything like as agile or successful. Armstrong's message is that if you have a vision you've got to stick with it, believe in it and resource it properly. True; but it's the resource that is the forcing issue here. In embracing the commercial sector Nasa looks to solve the problem of sustainability, hoping that private contractors can drive down the cost of access to space. If it works this will be a game changer, leaving private industry to do the donkey work of hauling people and payload into low Earth orbit while Nasa gets on with the business of developing new, advanced exploration technologies. If the US wishes to continue its human space exploration endeavours in this century it must find a new, more sustainable strategy and commercial providers hold the key to this. The question is not "if" but "when" they should start to rely upon private industry to do some of the things that their national space agency used to. Getting the timing wrong would decimate Nasa's army of aerospace engineers, leave their astronauts without a ride and irreversibly damage their space exploration capabilities. The direction in which Obama is taking Nasa is new, bold and necessary in the long run. The plans lack nothing in the way of vision but risk a great deal in their potential pre-maturity. It is this that Armstrong fears and with good reason. But if Obama can negotiate this risk, and find a rational way to smooth the transition from old to new, then what we will witness is not the end of an era but the birth of a new space age.

Obama agrees- beginning to transfer to the private sector is a more effective strategy. NSS, 10 (April 15, 2010, Nation Space Society, “Obama’s speech on Space Exploration in the 21st Century,” http://blog.nss.org/?p=1783) NHSo let me start by saying this: I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and its future. Because broadening our capabilities in space will continue to serve our society in ways we can scarcely imagine. Because exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new generation: sparking passions, launching careers. And because, ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future. I know there have been a number of questions raised about my administration’s plan for space exploration, especially in this part of Florida where so many rely on NASA as a source of income as well as a source of pride and community. And these questions come at a time of transition, as the Space Shuttle nears its scheduled retirement after almost thirty years of service. This adds to the worry of folks concerned not only about their own futures, but about the future of a space program to which they have devoted their lives. But I also know that underlying these concerns is a deeper worry, one that precedes not only this plan but this administration. It stems from the sense that folks in Washington – driven less by vision than by politics – have for years neglected NASA’s mission and undermined the work of the professionals who fulfill it. We can see that in NASA’s

5

http://blog.nss.org/?p=1783

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/apr/16/nasa-apollo-private-industry-commercial


budget, which has risen and fallen with the political winds. But we can also see it in other ways: in the reluctance of those who hold office to set clear and achievable objectives; to provide the resources to meet those objectives; and to justify not just these plans but the larger purpose of space exploration in the 21st century. That has to change. And with the strategy I’m outlining today, it will. We start by increasing NASA’s budget by $6 billion over the next five years, even as we have instituted a freeze on discretionary spending and sought to make cuts elsewhere in the budget. We will ramp up robotic exploration of the solar system, including a probe of the Sun’s atmosphere, new scouting missions to Mars and other destinations, and an advanced telescope to follow Hubble, allowing us to peer deeper into the universe than ever before. We will increase Earth-based observation to improve our understanding of our climate and our world: science that will garner tangible benefits, helping us to protect our environment for future generations. And we will extend the life of the International Space Station likely by more than five years, while actually using it for its intended purpose: conducting advanced research that can help improve daily life on Earth, as well as testing and improving upon our capabilities in space. This includes technologies like more efficient life support systems that will help reduce the cost of future missions. And in order to reach the Space Station, we will work with a growing array of private companies competing to make getting to space easier and more affordable. I recognize that some have said it is unfeasible or unwise to work with the private sector in this way. But the truth is, NASA has always relied on private industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts to space, from the Mercury capsule that carried John Glenn into orbit nearly fifty years ago, to the Space Shuttle Discovery currently orbiting overhead. By buying the service of space transportation – rather than the vehicles themselves – we can continue to ensure rigorous safety standards are met. But we will also accelerate the pace of innovation as companies – from young start-ups to established leaders – compete to design, build, and launch new means of carrying people and materials out of our atmosphere. In addition, as part of this effort, we will build on the good work already done on the Orion crew capsule. I have directed Charlie Bolden to immediately begin developing a rescue vehicle using this technology, so we are not forced to rely on foreign providers if it becomes necessary to quickly bring our people home from the International Space Station. And this Orion effort will be part of the technological foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space missions. In fact, Orion will be readied for flight right here in this room. Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” – a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space. In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models. We will also look at new designs, new materials, and new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there. And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it. That’s at least two years earlier than previously planned – and that’s conservative, given that the previous program was behind schedule and over-budget.

CP SOLVES (GENERAL) Private companies are capable of building and launching spacecraft.Malifitano, JD from Rutgers School of Law, BA in Political Science from Rutgers University, 2009 (David, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Space Tourism: The Final Frontier of Law, www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf)II. ANSARI X PRIZE: THE DAWNING OF AN ERA On October 4, 2004, the X PRIZE Foundation awarded $10 million to Scaled Composites and the Mojave Aerospace Ventures for the construction and successful flight of SpaceShipOne.7 SpaceShipOne succeeded in not only capturing the money, but also in reinvigorating interest in the commercial space industry. The importance of this recent competition is obvious; without it, there would be no discussion of the private space industry, primarily because it did not exist until October of 2004.8 SpaceShipOne was so successful in achieving its goals, that the United States Congress quickly moved to pass legislation immediately after its successful launch,9 which laid the preliminary foundation for regulating commercial space activities by private companies.10 While the X PRIZE contest has been invaluable in jump-starting the private space industry, it has also brought a plethora of potential legal dilemmas. While SpaceShipOne was the first successful flight of a privately built and operated spaceship, it is not the first time vehicles have traveled into space. An important distinction to note is that all prior spacecrafts were government controlled, and the laws which governed space up until recently have clearly reflected this.

6

http://www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf


NASA BAD (GENERAL) NASA is failing. Either we get rid of it or restructure it completely.Space Access Society, 2006 (Space Access Society, SAS’s View of Things as of 2/15/06, http://www.space-access.org/updates/saspolcy.html)Very Unlikely NASA In the best of all possible worlds, we'd have long ago dismantled the NASA "human spaceflight" empire for being a massive inflexible bureaucracy neither able nor willing to make any real changes in what they do: Flying a half-dozen people on a handful of missions a year at billions of dollars a mission. We'd have put money into low-cost access demonstration projects and investment incentives, and once the results started flying we'd have rebuilt NASA as a far smaller leading-edge research and exploration agency flying dozens of times a year on other people's rockets at less cost than it now (in a good year) flies a handful of times on its own. Alas, in this imperfect world NASA JSC/KSC/MSFC and their contractors represent a volume of Federal white collar jobs funding just about impossible to redirect with the limited political capital available. The loss of Columbia and the CAIB report's damning revelations of institutional dysfunction shook things up enough that the White House in January 2004 called for major change at NASA: Finish Station and retire Shuttle by 2010, then use the annual billions saved to transition to a sustainable program of manned deep space exploration, beginning with a return to the Moon to stay. The first major hitch emerged last summer, when Discovery needed blind luck to avoid destruction by essentially the same foam-shedding problem that doomed Columbia, despite two years and billions of dollars spent "fixing" things. Obviously the bureaucratic sclerosis identified in the CAIB report hadn't been cured. No surprise - much of the "reform" so far has been manager-shuffles and pious declarations of good intent. NASA human spaceflight still awaits serious reform. The latest problem is the new plan to implement the President's orders, the Exploration Systems Architecture Study or ESAS. This plan is crippled from the start in that it doesn't contemplate more than trims and reshuffles of the current Shuttle/Station standing army. It calls for development of not one but two major new NASA-proprietary Shuttle-derived launch vehicles, rather than working with existing and future US and world commercial launch assets. The combination ensures costs will stay far too high for the program to have any chance of doing sustainable deep-space exploration over the long term. Possibly too high to allow NASA to make it past even the first major hurdle, simultaneous winddown of Shuttle/Station and development of the oversized new "CEV" Shuttle-minus-the-payload-bay and the large new CLV launcher to lift it. Even if NASA can pull off winddown of Shuttle/Station in parallel with development of CEV/CLV, we have grave doubts about any "minor" programs aimed at our concerns surviving the funding crunch this will produce over the rest of the decade. Even with the best will in the world at NASA HQ, Congress will be looking hard for potential cuts - programs already described as outside the main effort will have a hard time surviving. What Should NASA Do? What do we think genuine reform at NASA would look like? We have three broad guidelines for what the agency should do to fix itself: - NASA should let go of controlling their own space transportation from start to finish. They should make an exploration plan based on a variety of commercially available boosters, then put the entire ground- to-orbit leg of their new deep space missions out to commercial bid . - NASA should lay off and/or BRAC large parts of their Shuttle/Station establishment as Shuttle is shut down and Station completed , rather than once again compulsively trying to "keep the team together". It's been a long time since this team had a winning season, the payroll is crippling, and the game has changed. Rebuild from the ground up. - NASA should let go of numerous arbitrary and/or dated "this is best" prejudices the organization has accumulated over the years . Old NASA (as someone once said of a notoriously inbred european royal house) forgets nothing, and it learns nothing.

7


NASA BAD, PRIVATE GOOD (COMPARATIVE) NASA Bad- the CP avoids political hurdles in NASA that cripple efficiency and stifle innovation. Garmong, 2004 [Robert, Ph.D. in philosophy, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004, 6-27, “Privatize Space Exploration: The Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program,” http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-s-space-program.html] NHSpaceShipOne, the first privately funded manned spacecraft, shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government. Just a week earlier, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. But it appears that neither the Administration nor anyone else has yet considered the true free-market solution for America's moribund space program: complete privatization. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet, by placing the space program under governmental funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to eleven times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development. Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space--it's been happening, quietly, for years. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft. Commercial satellite launches are now routine, and could easily be fully privatized. The so-called X Prize, for which SpaceShipOne is competing, offers incentive for private groups to break out of the Earth's atmosphere. But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if, for instance, it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited. We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science . If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. We have now made the first steps toward the stars. Before us are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best engineering minds, as only the free market can do.

Private industry is best and NASA should be phased out- it costs and wastes too much. Boaz 08 — executive vice president of the Cato Institute, former editor of New Guard magazine and was executive director of the Council for a Competitive Economy prior to joining Cato in 1981, author of Libertarianism: A Primer, editor of The Libertarian Reader, and coeditor of the Cato Handbook For Policymakers. His articles have been published in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and Slate. He is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows, and has appeared on ABC's Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher, CNN's Crossfire, NPR's Talk of the Nation and All Things Considered, John McLaughlin's One on One, Fox News Channel, BBC, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and other media. His latest book is The Politics of Freedom (Sept 15, 2008, David, “Space Privatization–from Cato to the BBC” http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/space-privatization-from-cato-to-the-bbc/) NH

8

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/space-privatization-from-cato-to-the-bbc/

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-s-space-program.html

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-s-space-program.html


He concludes that fostering good relations with other countries is insufficient justification for the expenditures, and that NASA should move aside and allow the private sector to play a role in manned space flight. The cost of these activities must lessen if they are to continue, and that will only happen with a decrease or removal of government involvement. Rees observes that only NASA deals with science, planetary exploration, and astronauts, while the private sector is allowed to exploit space commercially for things such as telecommunications. However, there is no shortage of interest in space entrepreneurship: wealthy people with a track record of commercial achievement are yearning to get involved. Rees sees space probes plastered with commercial logos in the future, just as Formula One racers are now. Those ideas may sound radical, but not if you’ve been following the work of the Cato Institute. As long ago as 1986, Alan Pell Crawford wrote hopefully that “space commercialization … is a reality,” and looked forward to the country making progress toward a free market in space. The elimination of NASA was a recommendation in the Cato Handbook for Congress in 1999. Edward L. Hudgins, former editor of Regulation magazine, wrote a great deal about private options in space. In 1995, he testified before the House Committee on Appropriations that the government should move out of non-defense related space activities, noting the high costs and wastefulness incurred by NASA . In 2001, Hudgins wrote “A Plea for Private Cosmonauts,” in which he urged the United States to follow the Russians (!) in rediscovering the benefits of free markets after NASA refused to honor Dennis Tito’s request for a trip to the ISS. Hudgins testified again before the House in 2001, this time before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. He noted that since the beginning of the Space Age, NASA has actively discouraged and barred many private space endeavors. This effectively works against the advancement and expansion of technology, while pushing out talent to foreign countries who court American scientists and researches to launch from their less-regulated facilities . In “Move Aside NASA,” Hudgins reported that neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. This makes the price tag of $100 billion for the ISS, far above its original projected cost, unjustifiable. Michael Gough in 1997 argued that the space “shuttle is a bust scientifically and commercially” and that both successful and unsuccessful NASA programs have crowded out private explorers, eliminating the possibility of lessening those problems . Molly K. Macauley of Resources for the Future argued in the Summer 2003 issue of Regulation that legislators and regulators had failed to take into account “the ills of price regulation, government competition, or command-and-control management” in making laws for space exploration.

NASA BAD, PRIVATE GOOD (COMPARATIVE) The roles of the government and the private companies in space development should be better established. Private companies, not NASA , are more suitable for commercial space development. Collins, Writer at Hosei University, Tokyo, 1993 (Patrick, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Towards Commercial Space Travel, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-12, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml)Although aviation research centres were established in many countries, these did not generally have manpower as great as or greater than the companies to which they gave contracts. The USA's Apollo Project was a unique Cold War project which created a widespread popular perception that space activities should be performed by central government organisations. This idea was apparently widely accepted for several decades in the USA, although it is contrary to that country's fundamental ideology. This acceptance was perhaps partly due to the unique aura of space and to the rhetoric of the government-funded space industry which has long claimed that they are "opening the space frontier for humankind". Nevil Shute, the chief engineer on the very successful British "R100" commercial airship project in the 1920s, described particularly clearly some of the disadvantages of government carrying out advanced technology vehicle development projects (1). The "R101" was a parallel government project with much greater funding than the R100. Not only was the R101's performance very poor, but it crashed disastrously, killing nearly everyone on board. The British government then scrapped the R100, in a further non-commercial decision rather similar to the US government's later decision to scrap the Saturn 5 rocket and Apollo project hardware. The recent evolution of the US/international space station project is an interesting case in point. Proposed initially to provide scientific research facilities in orbit, the project was of considerable interest to wide sectors of the engineering and scientific communities. However, as the cost mounted progressively to many times the cost of the 1970s Skylab project, and as the legal regime covering operations on board became progressively more complex, almost every scientific and engineering group has withdrawn their support. The current proposal is that the station will provide facilities for the agencies which build it, which is a travesty of the original purpose, and is not surprisingly of limited interest to the politicians who must justify such large expenditure to the public. Government organisations' objectives and modes of operation are necessarily different from those of private companies. It might be said that whereas companies are entrepreneurial, government organisations are "procedural", since they must be able to show to the public that their actions are in accordance with established rules. For this reason there are certain things that governments cannot do effectively. Commercial innovation is one of these, and this is required in full measure in order to develop popular space travel. This difference can perhaps be further illustrated by considering what might be the result if the head of a national air force were asked what it would cost to provide tourist flights to a certain destination. Because they operate a variety of different aircraft it might be thought that an air force could do this. But the way in which an air force operates is completely different from that of a commercial air travel company, and so their estimates would have almost no relation to the actual costs of a commercial company. Although commercial space travel is not an appropriate activity for government organisations, helping the private sector in various ways to develop the capabilities necessary to create a new and profitable industry is one of the traditional roles of government in every advanced country. In particular, governments in many countries played a major role over several decades in the development of aviation into a commercial industry, and they continue to do so, both directly and indirectly. Consequently, determining the correct roles for government and private organisations in the development of this field will be very important to its success, and may be of considerable economic significance if the commercial space travel industry grows as has been suggested (3) .

9

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml


NASA BAD, PRIVATE GOOD (COMPARATIVE) NASA is in no shape to carry out sustained space development. Private enterprises are key to future space development.Schmitt, Chairman of Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc, 2003 (Harrison H, Space Ref, Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on Lunar Exploration, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924)It is doubtful that the United States or any government will initiate or sustain a return of humans to the Moon absent a comparable set of circumstances as those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout 1960s. Huge unfunded "entitlement" liabilities and a lack of sustained media and therefore public interest will prevent the long-term commitment of resources and attention that such an effort requires. Even if tax-based funding commitments could be guaranteed, it is not a foregone conclusion that the competent and disciplined management system necessary to work in deep space would be created and sustained. If Government were to lead a return to deep space, the NASA of today is probably not the agency to undertake a significant new program to return humans to deep space, particularly the Moon and then to Mars. NASA today lacks the critical mass of youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space. It also has become too bureaucratic and too risk-adverse. Either a new agency would needed to implement such a program or NASA would need to be totally restructured using the lessons of what has worked and has not worked since it was created 45 years ago. Of particular importance would be for most of the agency to be made up of engineers and technicians in their 20s and managers in their 30s, the re-institution of design engineering activities in parallel with those of contractors, and the streamlining of management responsibility. The existing NASA also would need to undergo a major restructuring and streamlining of its program management, risk management, and financial management structures. Such total restructuring would be necessary to re-create the competence and discipline necessary to operate successfully in the much higher risk and more complex deep space environment relative to that in near-earth orbit. Most important for a new NASA or a new agency would be the guarantee of a sustained political (financial) commitment to see the job through and to not turn back once a deep space operational capability exists once again or accidents happen. At this point in history, we cannot count on the Government for such a sustained commitment. This includes not under-funding the effort - a huge problem still plaguing the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station, and other current and past programs. That is why I have been looking to a more predictable commitment from investors who have been given a credible business plan and a return on investment commensurable with the risk. Attaining a level of sustaining operations for a core business in fusion power and lunar resources requires about 10-15 years and $10-15 billion of private investment capital as well as the successful interim marketing and profitable sales related to a variety of applied fusion technologies. The time required from start-up to the delivery of the first 100 kg years supply to the first operating 1000 megawatt fusion power plant on Earth will be a function of the rate at which capital is available, but probably no less than 10 years. This schedule also depends to some degree on the U.S. Government being actively supportive in matters involving taxes, regulations, and international law but no more so than is expected for other commercial endeavors. If the U.S. Government also provided an internal environment for research and development of important technologies, investors would be encouraged as well. As you are aware, the precursor to NASA, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA), provided similar assistance and antitrust protection to aeronautics industry research during most of the 20th Century. In spite of the large, long-term potential return on investment, access to capital markets for a lunar 3He and terrestrial fusion power business will require a near-term return on investment, based on early applications of IEC fusion technology (10). Business plan development for commercial production and use of lunar Helium-3 requires a number of major steps all of which are necessary if long investor interest is to be attracted and held to the venture. The basic lunar resource endeavor would require a sustained commitment of investor capital for 10 to 15 years before there would be an adequate return on investment, far to long to expect to be competitive in the world's capital markets. Thus, "business bridges" with realistic and competitive returns on investment in three to five years will be necessary to reach the point where the lunar energy opportunity can attract the necessary investment capital. They include PET isotope production at point-of-use, therapeutic medical isotope production independent of fission reactors, nuclear waste transmutation, and mobile land mine and other explosive detection. Once fusion energy breakeven is exceeded, mobile, very long duration electrical power sources will be possible. These business bridges also should advance the development of the lunar energy technology base if at all possible. A business and investor based approach to a return to the Moon to stay represents a clear alternative to initiatives by the U.S. Government or by a coalition of other countries . Although not yet certain of success, a business-investor approach, supported by the potential of lunar Helium-3 fusion power, and derivative technologies and resources, offers the greatest likelihood of a predictable and sustained commitment to a return to deep space.

10


NASA BAD – LAUNDRY LIST NASA bad- its lack of risk assessment and concerns for results without safety are causing organizational failure. Hall, 2007 [Jeremy, assistant professor of public affairs at the University of Texas at Dallas, “Implications of Success and Persistence for Public Sector Performance”, August 2, Public Organization Review] NHIn spite of long-honored strategies within NASA that gave employees and contractors the opportunity to veto decisions that were unsafe, the environment had changed during the recent period leading up to the January, 1986, launch. The culture changed from one that valued safety over results to one that emphasized results over safety concerns: expectations had shifted. Performance had come to be measured by financial costs and delays rather than by successful missions without loss of equipment or human life. In other words, an important change occurred in the agency’s political/governmental environment—NASA felt an increased pressure to launch. As a result of this environmental change, the agency abandoned its previously successful strategy of canceling launches in light of safety concerns. Under the increased pressure to launch, the recommendations of employees and contractors were overshadowed; NASA afforded more senior political and quasi- political administrators the ability to overrule objections from technical experts. The new strategy NASA embraced focused on launching, in spite of risk, to reduce costs associated with delays. This example demonstrates how a public organization can be responsive to changes in its environment. Over the course of several launches leading up to January, 1986, success with this strategy led to further persistence, as Vaughan (1997) has identified. Vaughan’s (1997) account identifies one strategy that had been successful during previous launches, and which was utilized persistently up to the January, 1986 incident. That strategy was to produce, even at the cost of decreased safety. The presidential commission investigating the Challenger tragedy learned that NASA had repeatedly proceeded with shuttle launches in spite of recurring damage to o-rings in the solid rocket boosters. Thus, the strategy became to fly in spite of known technical flaws in the aircraft. Moreover, with each subsequent flight, NASA assumed more and more risk. As the damage to the o-rings became more and more severe with launches at colder temperatures, NASA learned that a launch could be successfully executed in spite of o-ring damage. The margin of acceptable risk was expanded with each launch. The strategy had been successful on seven launches where o-ring damage had occurred. NASA persisted. Thus, strategic persistence was positively affected by past successful performance—not only performance in launching the aircraft itself, but associated reductions in costs and delays that would have been incurred if launches had been postponed. The strategy was successful for an extended period of time, but that strategy suddenly failed at 50 s into the launch of the shuttle Challenger. An unanticipated environmental change caused the strategy to fail. Indeed, two such changes were identified in the investigations following the disaster. First, the launch temperature on the morning of January 28, 1986, was an unprecedented cold. These conditions were expected to cause o-ring blow—by, but the extent was unknown at low temperatures. As it turned out, it was not the first environmental change that caused the explosion. The cold temperatures did indeed cause o-ring failure. The primary and secondary o-rings on the right solid rocket booster expanded too slowly in the cold temperature, allowing hot gases to escape, and charring the o-rings. The charred material saved the shuttle because it sealed the crack the o-ring was intended to fill. Had it not been for a second environmental change, the booster would have burned its 2-min cycle and fallen back into the ocean as intended, and the shuttle would have returned safely. At 50 s into launch, another change took place. An unpredicted wind shear rattled the shuttle, shaking the charred remains of the o-rings loose from their crack, allowing the hot gas to escape, and leading directly to the explosion and disintegration of the spacecraft. Though wind shear was not unprecedented, this change, in combination with the effects of cold temperatures, resulted in disaster. The change in wind pattern caused, through the persistence of ignoring a faulty o- ring design in launches, an organizational failure. The model presented in Fig. 2 is an adequate explanation of the effect of past performance on persistence and persistence on subsequent performance for one task of one government agency. Two examples demonstrate the effects NASA experienced as a result of altering strategy to fit the environment (cost savings, timely launches) and as a result of persisting with an existing strategy in spite of environmental changes (severe financial and human costs; disaster). Romzek and Dubnick (1987) go beyond the managerial and technical issues at hand in the Challenger disaster to suggest that the larger institutional constraints on NASA led to a focus on bureaucratic and political aspects of accountability to the detriment of professional accountability. Indeed, that trend suggests an agency-wide culture in which strategic persistence led to a steady decline in the importance placed on alternate methods of accountability. The strategy that made NASA successful caused it to fail under a unique set of environmental circumstances. According to the final report of the Shuttle Columbia disaster released on September 26, 2003, the cause of the disaster was found to be NASA’s management culture. Interestingly enough, the report states that NASA failed to make changes to its organizational culture following the 1986 Shuttle Challenger disaster (Columbia Accident Investigation Board 2003). In short, NASA had not altered its strategies to the changed environment over the past 18 years, with organizational failure as the result.

11


NASA BAD – LUNAR MISSIONS BAD NASA mission to the moon is a waste of moneyLas Angeles times, December 10, 2006, (“Been there, done that,” http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10, 7/28/11)WHEN IT COMES TO poetic vision, "Fly Me to the Moon" has it all over "Global Precipitation Mission." But the prosaic and twice-delayed NASA meteorology project would conduct a useful scientific study of Earth weather. A return to the moon is a romantic but expensive mission in search of a purpose. NASA's announcement last week that it would erect a permanent moon station by 2020 as a sort of scientific way station to Mars was dramatic but not unexpected -- especially not after President Bush gave a speech two years ago calling on the space agency to return astronauts to the moon and from there to Mars. NASA officials enthused about the international partners for the moon project and the savings they would achieve by using existing technologies. What they didn't say is how much it would cost -- and more important, why do it in the first place except to recapture a wrinkled sense of glory. Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars? For too long, NASA has been overspending on manned flight and under-funding scientific study. Vital missions to study the Earth's climate, for example, have been delayed for years or indefinitely. An unmanned scientific mission to scan for Earth-like planets in nearby solar systems, scheduled to launch in 2011, has been postponed until 2015.

RESTRUCTURING SOLVES Phasing out NASA is stimulates vital private sector involvement -- solves the case.

12


Hudgins, 1999 [Edward L., director of regulatory studies for the Cato Institute, “Why Hasn't Space Flight Developed As Rapidly As Aviation?” 3-22, Aviation Week and Space Technology, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5477] But what is really needed in the 21st century is a strategy to back the government out of civilian space activities and allow imaginative private sector ideas to flourish. For example, the shuttle's 17-story-tall external fuel tanks currently are flown 98% of the distance into orbit before they are pushed back toward the ocean and break up as they reenter the atmosphere. But the external tanks could be put into orbit. With nearly 100 shuttle flights to date, 100 platforms -- with some 27 acres of total interior space, as much as the Pentagon -- could have been in orbit today, ready to be homesteaded by entrepreneurs for hotels or honeymoon suites. Of special significance, private firms are beginning to develop a space tourism industry. For example, the X Prize Foundation of St. Louis is raising $ 10 million to award to the first entrepreneur who sends a craft capable of carrying three persons at least 100 km. (62 mi.) into space and returning it to Earth twice in a two-week period. The first contender to test a vehicle that could go for the gold is Burt Rutan. He designed the first plane to fly around the world nonstop without refueling, in 1986. But ultimately, space enthusiasts will have to address the future of NASA's shuttles and space station. Governments never will deliver services as well as the private sector, reacting to the needs of paying private customers. A transition could involve NASA purchasing data from the private sector rather than building more hardware. The private contractor now in charge of shuttle launch preparations could be allowed to rent the shuttle for private missions. It ultimately will involve selling off the shuttle as well as the station. The technical skills of many who work for NASA are formidable. The ability of private entrepreneurs to offer new and ever-improving services at ever-falling costs is seen in the information revolution and U.S. history. The sooner the government allows the former to join the latter and frees the latter from regulatory restrictions, the sooner the U.S. will have a space sector appropriate for the new millennium.

BUYING DATA SOLVES Purchasing data from the private sector solves -- effective and phases in private sector involvement -- DOD efforts prove.Worden, 2004 [Simon, Brigadier General (USAF, Retired), a Fellow in the office of Senator Sam Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, was Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base. As the staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration's National Space Council, he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs. General Worden has written or co-authored more than 150 technical papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic

13


studies. He was scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision” 4-7, http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf]The first “different” private sector aspect is that NASA and other government agencies can contract for services rather than systems. There is a model here that the Department of Defense has used with great success, and as a former Air Force officer I must reluctantly commend the Navy. The Navy has something called the UFO, Ultra-High Frequency FollowOn communications satellites. (So the X-files TV show really is right, the government does have UFOs!) The Navy bought these communications capabilities as services rather than systems. The systems themselves weren’t developed by a government program office, but were built by the private sector to provide the services the Government contracted for. This is an example of more private sector involvement in the sense that government money is spent in a different manner. It is a step in the private direction, but only a small one. It is a first way to involve the private sector in a different manner than traditional contracting. NASA has not used it much, although there have been a few examples such as the Lunar Prospector that were done on this sort of model.

SOLVES – AT GOVT K/T LONG-TERM INITIATIVES Free market is net better for innovation.Garmong, 2004 [Robert, Ph.D. in philosophy, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004, 6-27, “Privatize Space Exploration: The Free-Market Solution For America's Space Program,” http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/science/space/3763-privatize-space-exploration-the-free-market-solution-for-america-039-s-space-program.html]We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. We have now made the first steps toward the stars. Before us are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best engineering minds, as only the free market can do.

14


Empirically false -- and NASA involvement comparatively slows progress much more.Hudgins, 1999 [Edward L., director of regulatory studies – CATO, “35. National Aeronautics and Space Administration,” CATO Handbook for Congress, http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb107/hb107-35.pdf]Some NASA defenders argue that only governments can sponsor scientific space ventures that promise no profit for decades, if ever . But indicative of NASA’s inability to prioritize its activities or hold down costs has been the planning of a manned mission to Mars . In 1991 President Bush announced the goal of placing humans on the Red Planet by 2019. Such a mission would bring unparalleled scientific returns. But NASA’s ‘‘ 90 Day Report’’ put the mission’s price at a staggering $450 billion, effectively killing the idea. Sensing that a less costly mission was possible, then– Martin Marietta engineer Robert Zubrin and other scientists devised what they called a Mars Direct approach that would use existing technology and dispensewith the space stations, Moon bases, and NASA’s other expensive infrastructure. Zubrin saw that, instead of carrying return fuel to Mars, an unmanned ship could land first with a simple chemical laboratory to manufacture methane and oxygen (i.e., rocket fuel) from Mars’s carbon dioxide atmosphere. NASA put the cost of Zubrin’s approach at between $20 billion and $30 billion, some 95 percent less than the government approach. Yet NASA continues to squander its $13.5 billion annual budget on a space shuttle and a station that contribute little new, useful knowledge. That agency could mount two or three manned Mars missions for the cost of the space station.

AT PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR NASA Public support and faith in NASA is substantially declining Leahy 6 (Bart, National Space Society “Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate”If you were to believe many of the speakers at this year's International Space Development Conference (ISDC), entrepreneurs like Burt Rutan and non-profit CEOs like Peter Diamandis are prepared to go it alone into space. In his opening remarks, Rutan stated that "Taxpayer-funded research makes absolutely no sense" and likened the current Vision for Space Exploration to an exercise in archeology. Diamandis said, "We need to get off the government dole." What is fuelling this libertarian streak in the space advocacy community? For starters, NASA has been struggling to get the Shuttle returned to flight, while small private ventures like Rutan's success with SpaceShipOne in 2004 have generated excitement in a way the Vision for Space Exploration has not. It should be noted, however, that advocates continue to lobby Congress to support the Vision, partially out of loyalty, partially from an understanding that NASA can still do things that smaller operators like Scaled Composites or SpaceX cannot do--yet. Even the large aerospace companies--who most keenly felt Rutan's barbs--had to admit that NASA has not been particularly inspiring. John Stevens from Lockheed-Martin Space Systems expressed concern that the current national space program has failed to inspire young people. He lamented the fact that "there's no excitement in NASA manned programs." Art Stephenson, Sector Vice President, Space Exploration Systems, Northrup-Grumman, admitted, "we don't always pick the hard thing." Stephenson said that NASA is risk-averse because the voting public does not want to lose another astronaut, and that the risk-averse nature of the program is the biggest stumbling block to inspiring an environment of development or inspiration. Even Bill Nye the Science Guy remarked that "It's easy to bust NASA's chops."

15


AT LIABILITY DISCOURAGES INVESTMENT Liability will be lifted- this encourages investment. Malifitano, JD from Rutgers School of Law, BA in Political Science from Rutgers University, 2009 (David, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Space Tourism: The Final Frontier of Law, www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf)Private space tourism is also costly and extremely risky, allowing for a valid and logical conclusion that bars holding the company liable for a great bulk of any potential damages stemming from a disaster. The bottom line for the American government and the public is that if fostering the private space industry is a worthy goal that these actors desire, a large amount of leeway must be given to these young companies .60 With space travel being a very dangerous and unpredictable undertaking, numerous problems are going to occur. The history of space flight is full of tragedies and there undoubtedly will be more in the future.61 If we want the private space industry to mature, then good faith efforts to expand human presence off this planet must be virtually exempt from liability. This is not to say that any mistakes on the part of the company will be forgiven; fraud and willful misconduct should be accounted for. 62

16



AT MOON TREATY=NO SOLVENCY The United States is not subject to the confinement of The Moon Treaty because it decided not to sign it.White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf)The 1979 Moon Treaty contains a non-appropriation clause which is more inclusive than Article II. Although Article 11, paragraph 2 of the Moon Treaty reiterates the language of Article II of the Outer Space Treaty , Article 11, paragraph 3 further provides that "neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon... shall become property of any state, international inter- governmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person" (references to "the moon" in the Moon Treaty refer to all celestial bodies and areas of outer space other than Earth and Earth orbits). The treaty also says, in Article 11, paragraph 1, that "the moon and its natural resources are the "common heritage of mankind." Opponents of the treaty note that the developing nations often interpret "common heritage" to mean "common property" of mankind. As a result, the Moon Treaty has encountered resistance from countries with free market economies. The Moon Treaty entered into force (with respect to ratifying and acceding states) when Austria became the fifth state to ratify on July 11, 1984. However, the United States and many other space-faring nations have decided not to sign the treaty.

17


AT GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS Government regulations were dealt with- industry developed regulations not only are more effective but have precedence over government regulations. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NHA major fear of the new reusable space transportation industry, and its financial backers, has been that the government would attempt to formulate regulations in a vacuum, placing impossible obstacles in the way of people whose job is difficult enough as it is . But how, in lieu of government regulation, would the industry ensure the safety of space flyers? To find an answer, the most prominent industry members met in El Segundo California on 18 January 2005. They decided to establish a federally recognized Industry Consensus Standards Organization whose purpose would be primarily to establish Consensus Standards for ensuring the safety of space flyers. If such Consensus Standards exist, they take the place of federal regulation, and provide the equivalent or greater effect, just as UL approval has become an important standard for electrical devices. The same will be true of spaceships and operating procedures promulgated by this future Industry Standards Organization. When faced with the choice of flying on an approved versus non-approved spaceship, a customer is much more likely to accept the former. These developing Industry Standards are likely to be superior to government regulations. Since they come from industry experience, they can be accepted and implemented quickly without the review of people less experienced in the field, or who have experience only in the non-applicable field of expendable launch vehicles.87 Government aviation safety regulations have sometimes, historically, reduced aircraft safety compared to what industry would have provided. Worse, the imprimatur of government approval carries a weight that can give a false sense of security, violating the principle of informed consent. A far from complete overview of these new lower cost, safer and reusable spaceships has been assembled here for your approval.

18

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9




AT NO PROFIT MOTIVE Profit already exists- empirical proof. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NHIn Burt Rutan’s opinion, space tourism is not limited to suborbital flights – he intends to provide low-cost space tourism to the moon. Most unusually for the perennially profit challenged aviation industry, Scaled Composites has posted 88 straight profitable quarters . Even while pushing the envelope with innovations such his “carefree-reentry” that stunned his own engineers, Scaled has never suffered a fatal crash. In comparison, the best run major operating airline, Southwest Airlines, has posted 54 straight profitable quarters. Many other companies are also planning to offer competing flights to space . Rutan says discussions are under way for similar deals with four other potential spaceline operators. Billionaire Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic1 has already purchased Burt’s SpaceShipOne technology and plans to begin carrying passengers in 2007. "We're prepared to invest another $100 million to develop this business," says Whitehorn, a director of Virgin Galactic. The first five-passenger flights are planned for 2008, and Virgin Galactic has set ticket prices at $210,000. SpaceShipOne has made possible the business of commercial space travel. Just a month after Virgin Galactic’s service was announced, more than 11,000 people, including "Star Trek" star William Shatner, “Aliens” star Sigourney Weaver and Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Dave Navarro had registered to pay the $190,000 fare for tickets.2, 3, 4 Rutan forecasts that 3,000 "astronauts" will fly by 2010, and by 2020, suborbital flights will become so affordable that 50,000 passengers will have entered space.5 Explaining the size of Virgin Galactic's potential market, Mr. Whitehorn said that the company has received more than 29,000 applications to fly since its announced formation last fall. "That is 29,000 people who said they are willing to pay a deposit of up to $20,000 for spaceflights within a range of prices of up to $200,000. We've also had 100 people who have actually signed 'terms and conditions' with us now to pay the full cost of $200,000 to fly on SpaceShipTwo." 6 Space tourism, like the “barnstormers” during the early years in aviation, appears to be an important contribution toward the low-cost space transportation market. In a 2002 study, Futron had estimated that by 2021 over 15,000 suborbital passengers with potential revenues in excess of $700 million and 60 orbital passengers with revenues $300 million; would exceed $1 Billion per year7 Futron’s numbers now appear low in our perfect hindsight. Virgin Galactic’s fleet will initially consist of five luxury SpaceShipTwo (SS2) class vehicles, each with the same diameter cabin as a Gulfstream V business jet – 6 ft (1.9m) in height and 7ft (2.2m) in width. Each will carry at least five and more likely eight passengers plus a pilot. The seats will fully recline so that even elderly passengers will be able to handle the expected force of six times Earth's gravity (6 Gs) upon descent. Rutan expects SS2 spacecraft to soar to between 84 and 87 miles (135-140 km); a three- hour trip with about three minutes of weightlessness. Roller coaster-type restraint bars will fold out of the way so you can float around. Travelers will be able to do more than watch 1 http://www.virgingalactic.com/ how candy floats around in space – they can fly around themselves. A week's pre-flight training will be required. Scaled Composites, plans to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.8 The first flights will leave from the Mojave Desert, but Mojave will not be the only place in the world to buy tickets and fly to space," Rutan said. Passengers may land in a different place from where they took off. A ship could launch near Las Vegas and land in Mojave," Rutan said. "Or, we could launch offshore, start out over the ocean and then... fly over the mountains and land in the desert. Burt Rutan had estimated that “commercial suborbital flights could cost $30,000 to $50,000 initially, and as little as $7,000 to $12,000 in a ‘second generation.“9 Sir Richard Branson appears to have found yet another untapped revenue stream to continue building his Virgin Inc., empire.10 Virgin Atlantic Airlines, Virgin Records, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Cola, ... all 150 companies are profitable. Volvo Cars of North America is giving away a seat on Branson's space craft at Volvo’s www.boldlygo.com website.. In a 30-second Super-Bowl ad, Volvo unveils its Volvo XC90 V8 SUV by comparing its power to a rocket blasting into space.11 XCOR Aerospace has a marketing agreement with Space Adventures, Ltd to offer the first 600 flights to 62 miles (100 km) altitude aboard XCOR's Xerus suborbital vehicle. "Our experience flying the EZ-Rocket airplane has shown we can fly rocket-powered vehicles multiple times per day with a small ground crew," said XCOR CEO Jeff Greason, "We can operate at a fraction of the cost of competitive vehicles."12 Oracle’s Space Sweepstakes’ participants can win a journey to suborbital space from Space Adventures, Ltd., by demonstrating expertise with Oracle's development tools. The prize package’s “total retail value is $138,000 including $35,000 cash” -- implying a discounted price of $103,000 fare for tickets on XCOR’s Xerus sub-orbital flights. 13 Nidar, a premier Norwegian confectioner; American Express’ Hong Kong and United States cardmembers and 7 UP®, all offer consumers opportunities to win or earn “Free” tickets into suborbital space. 14, 15, 16 Rocketplane Ltd., Inc. has also begun taking reservations for customers to ride their 43 foot sub-orbital Rocketplane XP to more than 330,000 feet (100 km+) above the Earth. Rocketplane intends to begin XP flights in early 2007.17

19


AT NO PRIVATE SECTOR $$ Wealthy private entities are willing- Space tourism proves. Worden, a Fellow in the office of Senator Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, former Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, LA Air Force Base, staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration’s National Space Council, he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs, author/co-author of more than 150 papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic studies, scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, 2004 (Simon, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision,” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf)Space tourism has already begun. Dennis Tito has already flown and Dr. Olson is the next paid up passenger on the Russian space tourism program. This is another example of folks with a fair bit of resources who are living the dream. I would submit there are quite a few folks like this. I talked to Mr. Tito a few months ago and he’s very interested in developing suborbital tourism. He said he thinks he can make suborbital tour vehicles cheap enough so that someone can do a suborbital ride for about the cost of an SUV. Of course I asked him whether he means his SUV, which is probably a Mercedes, or mine, which is a Subaru. He said “Somewhere between the two extremes.” I sure hope it’s closer to my SUV price than his! There are a significant number of people who might pay for such a ride, even a retired military officer, if my wife didn’t find out about it. Regardless, space tourism is a significant area and there are people that have the money to pay for it. Other groups are looking at substantial orbital complexes. The Space Island Group is talking about using shuttle main tanks left in orbit as construction building blocks for an orbital complex. There are at least a dozen groups that have pretty substantial financing and support and pretty good technical credibility behind them that are looking at privately developed stations in Earth orbit that could support manufacturing, tourism and so forth .

The private sector is capable of funding space development and can develop it more efficiently that NASA can.Worden, a Fellow in the office of Senator Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, former Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, LA Air Force Base, staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration’s National Space Council, he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs, author/co-author of more than 150 papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic studies, scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, 2004 (Simon, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision,” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf)The key question is how much money is available for space exploration in the private sector? One of the interesting things to note is that the 4 US gross domestic product is about four times, in real terms, what it was in 1960 when we started the Apollo program. With the continued growth that we anticipate, it ought to be at least twice that in 2025. That has resulted in the wealthiest individuals in the United States now having assets considerably greater than $10 billion. There are probably a couple dozen of them in this range. This is a lot of money and there is an interesting thing about these folks – a lot of them are pretty young. If you’re old and rich, you tend to put money in medical research; if you’re young and rich, you tend to put it in cool things. Space is one of the coolest. Just to put this in context, if we inflate the cost of project Mercury from the early 1960s, which was our first attempt to put people in suborbital and then orbital flights, carried out by the government, it was slightly less than a billion dollars. The point I am making is that there are now a number of people in the United States who could easily finance Project Mercury. In fact, as I’ll discuss later, they are now financing a modern private version of Project Mercury; this process is already underway. The other thing to point out about these private ventures is that if you spend your own money, the process tends to be more efficient. To expand on this point, based on my own personal experience, I was involved in the last year and a half in a small booster program called the Air Force FALCON program. We have some private investors building their own rockets. Our assessment was that by spending their own money, compared to somebody spending the government’s money, their capability development was less expensive than a comparable Government effort by a factor of 2 to 5. So if someone wants to do the Mercury program privately, it is probably going to cost a lot less than it would if the government did it. Now to give a couple of examples, one of those investors is Elon Musk and his SpaceX Corporation. I don’t know if you are familiar with this program, but this fellow, I think he’s 32 years old, made an ungodly amount of money in the Internet, while I was a mid-level officer. The jealousy seeps through. But he is not unique and he, like many of his colleagues, grew up on Star Trek and Star Wars and they want to be involved in space. He was interested in Mars and was looking at private investments to do Mars missions and quickly ran up against a problem of launch vehicles. When he looked at buying them from U.S. companies, he found that they were pretty expensive. Even for a billionaire, spending a couple hundred million dollars a pop on a launch vehicle goes through money pretty fast. I am told he also spoke to some Russian suppliers and concluded that they were a bit on the crooked side, which maybe explains why he got rich. 5 But he decided he could build his own booster, and that was about two years ago. He is within a couple months of flying a thousand pound to low-earth-orbit class booster, which is going to carry a Navy test satellite (Figure 1). Falcon Summary (SpaceX) • Payload capability: Approx 1100 lbs to LEO (28.5 deg) • Launch from both Eastern and Western Ranges • Multiple manifest, secondary, and piggyback capabilities • Benign payload environment • $6M per vehicle through 2004 • First launch 2004 • Diameter 5.5’ tapering to 5’ • Length 68’ • 1st Stage Parachute/Water Recovery • 1st Stage Lox/RP1 • 2nd Stage Lox/RP1 Figure 1 The price that he quotes is six million dollars per vehicle. And he thinks he can make money on this. My former office was responsible for trying to keep the Government people who wanted to add bureaucracy away from him and I think we were semi-successful. So he might actually be able to meet that price. But this is just one example; there are others in the United States also building rockets with private money. Now, the next one, and the one I’m sure everyone is very familiar with, is the X Prize. Figure 2 shows one of the entrants which clearly has a very good chance of winning this prize, some time this year perhaps, but

20

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf



there are others as well. They will basically do what the first step of Mercury did, although it will actually do one or two things better. It will fly it again in a few days and take three people up in a suborbital flight. I don’t know what the exact amount that they spent on this is, but it’s probably a few tens of millions or less. That’s a pretty impressive effort done privately. I do want to emphasize that the equivalent of the Mercury program has begun privately and I know that many of these folks have thoughts of moving on to orbital capabilities. X prize – Spaceship One Entrant Figure 2 Now let me suggest how this private space exploration might expand. If the suborbital flight development cost was about $20 million, I would note that it takes about ten times the energy to put something in orbit. The development cost for a private orbital shot is thus probably about $100-200 million. This clearly could be done privately. It takes about ten times that energy again to get to the moon, so I might suggest that a private expedition to the moon would be on the order of a billion dollars. Again, I want to point out there are a surprising number of people in the United States who have these amounts of resources. I also think that that is about the amount of money it would take to send people to Mars one way. On a more speculative note, I’ll talk about why I think that that private one-way trip is something that could happen some day. These cost estimates assume no improvement in space access cost. There are people who want to assume something like a Moore’s Law (where computing power increases about a factor of two every two years with no increase in costs) on access to space. Clearly, space access is not electronics, it is hardware of a different sort we’re working with. Nonethe7 less, a lot of the analyses show that if one could develop even partially reusable systems, the cost of access to space could go down, maybe not as much as some of the zealots I used to work with would say, but significantly. With or without such breakthroughs, I conclude that the possibility of doing space exploration with private sector efforts is pretty significant.

AT LAUNCH COSTS TOO EXPENSIVE Launch costs are obsolete- private competition will spur development of a reusable launch vehicle that will drive down costs. Collins, Writer at Hosei University, Tokyo, 1993 (Patrick, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Towards Commercial Space Travel, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-12, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml)One sign of "perestroika" in the space industry is the recently announced joint venture by Lockheed and Krunichev to market the low-cost Proton launch vehicle. Although western governments are trying to protect the markets for their higher-cost launch vehicles, this development should put pressure on western makers of high-cost expendable rockets to consider developing low-cost reusable vehicles . Another sign that the space industry is at last beginning to live up to aviation's example was the 1990 flight of Tokyo Broadcasting Service (TBS) journalist, Akiyaka Toyohiro, to the orbiting space station, MIR. This achieved a significant place in the history of humans' expansion into space. As well as being the first Japanese, and the first journalist to visit space, Akiyama-san's flight was the first commercial space flight by someone outside the space industry. His flight was also strikingly similar to the many pioneering flights in the early days of aviation sponsored by newspaper companies, primarily for the purposes of publicity. As an example, the Mainichi Shimbun company (which today is the parent company of TBS) and the Asahi Shimbun company competed continuously through the 1920s and 30s, sponsoring international competitions, such as for the first flight across the Pacific ocean, and long distance flights. For example the 1937 flight of the "Kamikaze-go" from Tokyo to London was sponsored by the Asahi Shimbun company, while in 1939 the "Nippon-go" made an eastward flight around the world, visiting 30 countries, sponsored by the Mainichi Shimbun. These and similar flights, such as Lindbergh's transatlantic flight, that led to the "Lindbergh boom" in US domestic aviation, played a major role in popularizing passenger flight, by demonstrating that aviation technology was mature enough to provide safe passenger operations. The second such commercial space flight project, the flight of the British Helen Sharman to MIR in 1991, was similar in principle to Akiyama-san's flight, except that it was commercially unsuccessful, leading to a substantial loss on the part of the sponsors. But this is also part of business; investments can lead to losses as well as to profits. After the recent "bubble economy" many companies in Japan are facing unprecedented losses caused by misdirected investment. A small fraction of these losses would be sufficient to pay for the development of a space tourism business. As and when reusable commercial passenger-carrying launch vehicles are developed, they will surely receive a high level of publicity. For this reason they will be very good vehicles for commercial publicity, and it seems probable that there will be many sponsored space flights emulating the early days of commercial flight. Such a pattern of development in the space industry could well have similar benefits for the industry's commercialisation.

21



AT INTL LAW = NO PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT Under the Outer Space Treaty, private appropriation of space is legal.White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf)Article II of the Outer Space Treaty governs the appropriation of space resources. Article II provides that "Outer Space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means ." International lawyers differ in their interpretation of the term "national appropriation." Some interpret Article II narrowly to prohibit only national appropriation.[3] Many others interpret the clause broadly to prohibit all forms of appropriation, including private and international appropriation.[4] When Article II is compared to similar provisions in other documents, however, it becomes clear that the narrow interpretation is correct. Before the Space Treaty was drafted by the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), four other international legal organizations prepared draft resolutions. All of these documents recommended non-appropriation clauses which are broader than Article II.[5] The terminology in these clauses suggests that at the time the Space Treaty was drafted, international lawyers did not consider "national appropriation" to be an all-inclusive phrase . For example, a resolution of the International Institute of Space Law specifically distinguished between national and private appropriation: "Celestial bodies or regions on them shall not be subject to national or private appropriation, by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation or by any other means."[6] On the basis of a similar analysis, Professor Gorove has concluded that Article II only prohibits national and not private appropriation.[7]

According to the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer space, it is legal for countries to carry out development in space as long as the countries are not making territorial claims.White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf)Thus, COPUOS delegates elected to prohibit only territorial and not functional sovereignty . Ultimately, Article II must be interpreted narrowly. For under international law states may do whatever is not expressly forbidden. "Restrictions upon the independence of states cannot...be presumed".[16] The language in Article II "by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means," refers to the traditional (occupation) and the broader modern(display of authority) standards for establishing territorial claims. The clause does not prohibit other exercises of sovereignty or jurisdiction.

Countries are legally free to do almost any kind of development in space.White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf)Space objects occupy locations on a first-come, first-served basis, and personnel have the right to conduct their activities without the harmful interference of other states. In addition, although entities may not claim ownership of mineral resources "in place," once they have been removed (i.e. mined) then they are subject to ownership.[20] Former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach aptly describes this new hybrid as "primary rights... in a localized facility."[21] This jurisdiction permits the state of registry to subject its space objects and personnel to any national laws which are not in conflict with international law. So states may legislate with respect to a broad range of both public and private activities; and, in most circumstances, they exercise as much authority within the vicinity of their space facilities as they would within their territory on Earth. Under Article VIII, jurisdiction and control is only valid insofar as it is necessary to accomplish the exploration and exploitation of outer space and celestial bodies. Jurisdiction and control is also limited in time. It ceases to exist when activity is halted-- as, for example, when a space object is abandoned or returned to Earth. Because states only control as much territory as is actually used, the Outer Space Treaty does permit free access to outer space.

22


AT INTL LAW = NO PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT Space can be used by private enterprises, the activities of which are preliminarily regulated by the Commercial Space Launch Activities Act. Malifitano, JD from Rutgers School of Law, BA in Political Science from Rutgers University, 2009 (David, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Space Tourism: The Final Frontier of Law, www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf)III. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR SPACE The first major attempt to govern space and the manner in which the world interacts with it came about in the form of the Outer Space Treaty.11 The treaty was signed by many countries in 1967 and still serves as the basic legal framework for governing outer space among the nations of the world.12 A majority of the treaty deals with issues on an international scale, such as limiting the use of nuclear weapons and military forces in space by all signatories to the treaty.13 However, one of its primary purposes was to limit the legal jurisdiction any signatory to the treaty can exert over the skies above.14 The treaty views space in the same light that the oceans of the world are viewed today; they can be used by all but governed by none.15 Numerous other international agreements and agencies dealing with activities in space have been created throughout the past few decades, such as the agreement which governs the International Space Station and the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space.16 While there have been a handful of agreements which provide basic legal frameworks, very few agreements provide the technical and specific details which are essential for providing a comprehensive system necessary to regulate space activity. The main reason for this deficiency is likely due to the fact that until recently, the prospect of large numbers of individuals entering space seemed remote. Even more remote was the prospect of private companies engaging in space travel, in a domain historically reserved for governments with far larger budgets.17 Two international efforts have taken a comprehensive approach to the problem concerning liability for entities in space, though even these efforts are still insufficient in many respects. The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (“Liability Convention”), covers many aspects of liability that are not addressed by the Outer Space Treaty.18 The Convention primarily imposes complete liability onto the nation from which the spacecraft originates, should any problems arise from either the craft itself or associated activities.19 Despite the improved legal regulations that came about as a result of the Liability Convention, it only applies to state actors, not individuals or private entities.20 The other major piece of legislation, domestic in origin, is the Commercial Space Launch Activities Act (“Commercial Act”) passed by Congress in 1984.21 The Act established a preliminary legal framework to regulate private entities entering space by requiring licenses, insurance, registration, and hindering the ability of companies to circumvent these requirements by launching from foreign territories.22 In December of 2004, Congress amended the act to provide a more comprehensive legal framework for the regulation of private entities that wish to engage in space travel .23 One of the primary changes in direction this act took was to place the regulation of space flight under the auspices of the FAA.24 Despite this new piece of legislation, many questions remain unanswered and further, it remains to be seen if applying FAA regulations to the space industry is the correct course to take.25 While the Commercial Act is a good start, it is far from comprehensive; the Act is fairly basic and surprisingly simple for federal regulations, seeking only to lay the preliminary framework for a more complex system of space regulation in the future. The act does, however, attempt to regulate some particular aspect of space flight with more complexity, such as demanding that all who attempt to launch any structure or vehicle into space must obtain a license from the United States Government .26

Commercial space flights have not been regulated- no judicial interpretations exist. Malifitano, JD from Rutgers School of Law, BA in Political Science from Rutgers University, 2009 (David, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Space Tourism: The Final Frontier of Law, www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf)Another ancillary issue that emerges under Title 49 is whether companies or someone else is responsible for any and all activities that may result on the spaceship. The Commercial Act seems to be crafted in a way that protects employees and customers from a space related disaster.92 But what if an employee gets into an argument with a customer and the resulting argument leads to a death aboard the ship? What if the fight causes serious damage to a portion of the hull that in turn could lead to serious problems for the ship and everyone else on board? Too what extent are these companies responsible for the actions of their employees? The Commercial Act simply does not address these issues in any detail.93 The problem with addressing these specifics is that there has been not been any significant judicial interpretation of any of these commercial space statutes, primarily because there have not been any private space flights. However, with the recent unveiling of SpaceShipTwo, the advent of commercial space flights should solve this problem.94

AT POPERTY RIGHTS Private property rights of space commercial enterprises will be solved by private law condominiums.

23




White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf) The 1967 Outer Space Treaty [1] does not provide a positive regime for the governance of space development. The 1979 Moon Treaty[2] provides a regime for development, but that regime prohibits real property rights. For that and other reasons, most nations have not signed or ratified the Moon Treaty . A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops . Professionals foresee an integrated system of solar power generation, lunar and asteroidal mining, orbital industrialization, and habitation in outer space . In the midst of this complexity, the right to maintain a facility in a given location relative to another space object may create conflict. Such conflicts may arise sooner than we expect, if private companies begin building subsidiary facilities around space stations. Eventually large public facilities will become the hub of private space development, and owners will want to protect the proximity value of their facility location. It also seems likely that at some point national governments and/or private companies will clash over the right to exploit a given mineral deposit. Finally, the geosynchronous orbit is already crowded with satellites, and other orbits with unique characteristics may become scarce in the future. The institution of real property is the most efficient method of allocating the scarce resource of location value. Space habitats, for example, will be very expensive and will probably require financing from private as well as public sources. Selling property rights for living or business space on the habitat would be one way of obtaining private financing. Private law condominiums would seem to be a particularly apt financing model -- inhabitants could hold title to their living space and pay a monthly fee for life-support services and maintenance of common areas. Even those countries which do not have launch capability would benefit from a property regime. Private entities from the developing nations could obtain property rights by purchasing obsolete facilities from foreign entities that are more technologically advanced. A regime of real property rights would provide legal and political certainty . Investors and settlers could predict the outcome of a conflict with greater certainty by analogizing to terrestrial property law. Settlers and developers would also be reassured, knowing that other nations would respect their right to remain at a given location.

AT CP KILLS NASA JOBS Non Unique- the space coast economy is destroyed due to cancellation of the Shuttle. Leger, 7/5/2011, (Donna, “End of shuttle program slams Space Coast economy” USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2011-07-01-space-coast-business_n.htm, Acc 7/27/2011) NHFlorida's Space Coast, with NASA's Kennedy Space Center as its anchor and identity, is bracing for an economic meltdown when the shuttle program officially ends later this month. Mulberry's husband already lost his job as a quality engineer in the April 8 layoffs at the Space Center. Mulberry owns Space Shirts and SpaceShirts.com, a silk-screening business with a retail store full of space shuttle memorabilia that will suffer if interest in space wanes. "It's bad, because we don't want to leave here," says Mulberry, who has two children in high school. "If we leave here, 13 people lose their jobs. A lot of people lose if we leave." Space Shuttle Atlantis is scheduled to launch for the last time Friday as

24

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf


the final mission in the 30-year-old program. Once the shuttle program is mothballed, more than 8,000 people will have lost their jobs at the Kennedy Space Center. A final round of layoffs is set for July 22, two days after Atlantis lands. Business officials say the layoffs will ripple through Brevard County, a community already reeling from the sluggish economy and 10.8% unemployment. "It's a one-two punch," says Marcia Gaedcke, president of the Titusville Area Chamber of Commerce, which covers an area where about 40% of Kennedy Space Center employees live. "Everyone's going to feel it. You could really drill down to any business." Many of the county's businesses — large and small — have ties to the space program. Melissa Stains, president and CEO of the Cocoa Beach Regional Chamber of Commerce, says 25,000 people will take a direct hit when the shuttle program ends. "Space shuttle is about 9,000 jobs inside the gate," of the Kennedy Space Center, Stains says. For every one person directly employed at Kennedy Space Center, 2.8 people "outside the gate" depend on business from space shuttle operations, she says. In May, the Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville metro area, which encompasses the Space Coast, had the steepest employment decline in the state, losing 6,800 jobs, the Florida Agency for Workforce Innovation reported. "It's a perfect economic storm, and we're in it," Stains says.

8,000 people laid off due to shuttles end- Allen, 7/11, (Greg, “End of Shuttle Program Leaves Thousands Jobless,” NPR, http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137677198/end-of-shuttle-program-leaves-thousands-jobless Acc 7/27/2011) NHFor thousands of people in Florida, the last launch of the space shuttle is not just the end of an era, it's also the end of a career. Nearly 8,000 men and women who worked on the space shuttle have been laid off — a blow to an area where unemployment is well above the national average.

Turn- Private leadership boosts innovation and jobs.Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8/2010, “Prepare for Liftoff,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1) NHBut in the long run, the new approach will create more jobs -- and more value -- because the United States will end up with both an innovative, long-term government space program and an energetic, fast-growing private-sector market that will transport people and cargo for the U.S. government, space tourists, and non-U.S. governments. Ultimately, the costs and risks of space transport will come down, flights will increase, and markets will grow. As with the Internet, we can't predict all the uses to which commercial innovation will put this infrastructure.

SOLVES – COLONIZATION Commercialization of space is key to our survival.Malifitano, JD from Rutgers School of Law, BA in Political Science from Rutgers University, 2009 (David, Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, Space Tourism: The Final Frontier of Law, www.rctlj.org/h/sites/default/files/2_Malfitano_Final_2.pdf)The commercial space industry is of critical importance to the continued expansion of the human race. As our population increases, new habitats and colonies will eventually be needed to ensure the planet’s ecosystem does not collapse. By the same token, as human civilization expands, new resources will be needed to fuel our economies. Space provides ample supplies of all manner of minerals and resources. The steps being taken now are the precursors to a full-fledged viable space industry. It is of critical importance that the United States take steps to ensure its viability and continued expansion.

25


http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1


SOLVES – CONSTELLATION Phase-out solves the goals of Constellation – the private sector performs launches and frees a overburdened NASA, allowing ambitious exploration to be successfulMatson, writing for Scientific American ’10 (John, “Phased Out: Obama's NASA Budget Would Cancel Constellation Moon Program, Privatize Manned Launches”, 2/1/10, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cance,l, MA)President Obama delivered his budget request for fiscal year 2011 to Congress on Monday, proposing sweeping changes to NASA's spaceflight program while increasing the agency's overall budget. As had been rumored for days, Obama's blueprint for NASA would cancel the Constellation program , the family of rockets and hardware now in development to replace the aging space shuttle, and would call instead on commercial vendors to fly astronauts to orbit. Since 2005 the U.S. has spent roughly $9 billion developing the Constellation program's Ares rockets and Orion crew capsule, which were originally supposed to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. Constellation took shape in the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster as a safer, longer-range successor to the space shuttle, which is slated for retirement this year. But Constellation's costs have ballooned and its timeline has slipped ; an independent panel convened by the Obama administration and chaired by former aerospace executive Norman Augustine estimated last year that the Ares rocket system would not be ready for manned missions before 2017, with a lunar return sometime in the mid-2020s, even under the most favorable circumstances. By scrapping the troubled program—along with its focus on a moon landing—and leaning on the private sector, the agency thinks it will actually accelerate efforts to loft astronauts beyond low Earth orbit, the farthest reach of the shuttle. NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver declined to specify a preliminary target for exploration in a teleconference Monday afternoon but mentioned near-Earth asteroids as a potential stepping-stone on the path to ultimately exploring Mars and its moons. She also pointed out that, although the agency will relax its focus on the moon, lunar exploration remains on the table. "We're certainly not canceling our ambitions to explore space," Garver said. "We're canceling Constellation." Garver tried to put the new approach in context, calling Constellation's stated goal of a moon landing in 2020 "wishful thinking." By stepping back from that unrealistic timeline, she said, the U.S. would be free to undertake more ambitious exploration. "We had lost the moon," Garver said, "and what this program does is give us back the solar system." Sources revealed the contents of the budget request to various newspapers last week, spurring a wave of condemnation from Michael Griffin, a former NASA administrator and tireless Constellation champion, and from members of Congress who represent states with major NASA centers

26

http://www.scientificamerican.com/topic.cfm?id=mars

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=speculation-about-nasas-future-swir-2010-01-29

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cance,l

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasa-budget-constellation-cancel

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-844

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/


focused on the human spaceflight program—Texas, Florida, Alabama. Those lawmakers will have their say when the houses of Congress hammer out their own budgets in the coming weeks. In Monday's teleconference, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden expressed support for the budget request, saying that he was "excited" to present the president's proposal, which would add $6 billion to NASA's total outlay over the next five years. Bolden said that he and Obama agreed that Constellation was in an untenable position. "The truth is, we were not on a sustainable path to get back to the moon's surface," Bolden said. He applauded the decision to delegate the development of launch capabilities to commercial providers while, he said, "NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizons beyond Earth." In addition to spurring the development of commercial rockets, Obama's budget is designed to extend the life of the International Space Station, still under construction, to at least 2020. It would also fund a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, the CO2-tracking satellite that failed to reach orbit in a February launch. Sally Ride, the first U.S. woman in space and a member of the Augustine commission, which cast Constellation's future in a fairly unflattering light, called Obama's budget request "a significant vote of confidence for NASA." The proposal, Ride said, "puts NASA on a sustainable path toward the future." Bolden, also a former astronaut, vowed that tapping private spaceflight companies for manned launches would not diminish NASA's commitment to safety. He seemed to become choked up as he spoke of losing friends in both the Challenger and Columbia accidents, the latter of which occurred exactly seven years to the day before Monday's budget announcement. "No one cares more about safety than I," Bolden said. "I give you my word that these vehicles will be safe."

Private development solves Constellation better – free market competition creates the best and safest means for explorationBlackwell, prof of journalism at Colorado U and writer for CU Independent, ’10 (David, “Obama’s plans for privatizing space fall flat”, 8/4/10, http://cuindependent.com/2010/10/04/obama%E2%80%99s-plans-for-privatizing-space-fall-flat/, MA)Space exploration is being postponed indefinitely by the new direction of the U.S. space program. Late last January, President Obama unveiled his plans for the future of U.S. spaceflight. Though the plan included a budget increase, most of the plan was focused on cuts. Obama called for the retirement of the space shuttle, the cancellation of the Constellation Program, and the removal of NASA as the primary spaceflight developers. Instead, the development of new ways to get into space will fall to the private sector. This plan has met with criticism from the space community, notably Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon. Retiring the space shuttle is a smart move, considering that the ships were designed in the 1960s and built in the 1970s. But with no replacement yet designed, that leaves the U.S. without any means to reach space. This was the point of the Constellation Program, to replace the space shuttle with more modern, safer designs. Obama justified the cancellation of the program by pointing out that over $9 billion has been spent since 2005 on Constellation, with the 2020 being the next projected moon landing. Several billion dollars are still needed to make the dreams of Constellation a reality, and that just seems like far too much. Constellation’s development of new rocket boosters has become overpriced and behind schedule. But what Obama has failed to realize is that this is the case for every spacecraft previously built by NASA. It is a complicated science, and placing time restrictions on the development of spacecraft inhibits the ability to create the best ship possible. But, because Constellation is taking longer than promised, it has been canceled. However, the development of new spaceflight technologies will take even longer, and will likely end up costing just as much in the end, if not more. The earliest credible date for reaching beyond the moon without Constellation is the mid-2020s. With the Constellation Program gone, and NASA no longer serving as the prime developers of spacecraft, Obama has called for the private sector to begin taking responsibility for reaching space. Allowing private companies would free the future of spaceflight from annual budget scares, quadrennial presidential campaigns and congressional meddling, also known as politics. Doing so would allow spaceflight to develop through competition, and theoretically would synthesize the best spacecraft possible.

SOLVES – ECONOMY Private leadership boosts innovation and jobs.Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8/2010, “Prepare for Liftoff,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1) NHBut in the long run, the new approach will create more jobs -- and more value -- because the United States will end up with both an innovative, long-term government space program and an energetic, fast-growing private-sector market that will transport people and cargo for the U.S. government, space tourists, and non-U.S. governments. Ultimately, the costs and risks of space transport will come down, flights will increase, and markets will grow. As with the Internet, we can't predict all the uses to which commercial innovation will put this infrastructure.

27


http://cuindependent.com/2010/10/04/obama%E2%80%99s-plans-for-privatizing-space-fall-flat/

http://cuindependent.com/2010/10/04/obama%E2%80%99s-plans-for-privatizing-space-fall-flat/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=nasas-orbiting-carbon-observatory-c-2009-02-24

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/02/01/shelby-nasa-budget-begins-a-death-march-for-us-human-spaceflight/

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/01/28/more-reaction-to-potential-nasa-changes/


SOLVES – LEADERSHIP CP solves space leadership- Obama agrees. NSS, 10 (April 15, 2010, Nation Space Society, “Obama’s speech on Space Exploration in the 21st Century,” http://blog.nss.org/?p=1783) NHSome have said, for instance, that this plan gives up on our leadership in space by failing to produce plans within NASA to reach low Earth orbit, relying instead on companies and other countries. But we will actually reach space faster and more often under this new plan, in ways that will help us improve our technological capacity and lower our costs, which are both essential for the long-term sustainability of space flight . In fact, through our plan, we’ll be sending many more astronauts to space over the next decade. There are also those who have criticized our decision to end parts of Constellation as one that will hinder space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. But by investing in groundbreaking research and innovative companies, we have the potential to rapidly transform our capabilities – even as we build on the important work already completed, through projects like Orion, for future missions. And unlike the previous program, we are setting a course with specific and achievable milestones.

The OST provides that the government have jurisdiction over private development- this means they would be perceived. White, Family, Civil, Bankruptcy, and International Law Attorney, collaborator with the Space Settlement Institute, 1997 (Wayne N. Jr., The American Institute of Aeronautic and Astronautics, Real Property Rights in Outer Space, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/research_library/WayneWhite98-2.pdf)Sovereignty Article II also refers to claims of sovereignty. Sovereignty is a nation's right to exert exclusive authority over people, resources and institutions. It is exercised to its fullest extent within the boundaries of a nation's territory. Countries also express their sovereignty outside national boundaries, but that authority is limited to certain specific functions, such as jurisdiction over ships, aircraft, and citizens abroad. Thus, international lawyers distinguish between the absolute territorial sovereignty which is exercised within national boundaries, and the functional aspects of sovereignty, which are exercised beyond national boundaries. The Outer Space Treaty contains provisions other than Article II which actually require parties to exercise functional sovereignty . The most significant example is Article VIII, which requires parties to "retain jurisdiction and control over... space objects on their registry... and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body."

28



SOLVES – LUNAR MISSIONS Private sector can solve a lunar mission more effectively than NASA- plans are already in existence. David 5 (Leonard, Senior Space Writer National Space Society, “ Private Sector, Low-Cost Lunar Plan Unveiled” Nov 21 http://www.space.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled.htm) NHA newly released study has focused on how best to return people to the Moon, reporting that future lunar missions can be done for under $10 billion - far less than a NASA price tag. The multi-phased three-year study was done by a private space firm, SpaceDev of Poway, California, and concluded that safe, lower cost missions can be completed by the private sector using existing technology or innovative new technology expected to be available in time to support human exploration of the Moon in the near-future. SpaceDev announced the results of its International Lunar Observatories Human Servicing Mission study last week at a meeting conducted by Lunar Enterprise Corporation (LEC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Space Age Publishing Company of Hawaii's Island, Hawaii, and Palo Alto, California. The study was funded by LEC. NASA has tallied its future lunar mission costs, projecting a figure of $104 billion over 13 years. According to SpaceDev's chief, Jim Benson, the private group has found that a more comprehensive series of missions could be completed in a fraction of the time and for one-tenth of the cost of the NASA estimate. Each mission, as envisioned by SpaceDev, would position a habitat module in lunar orbit or on the moon's surface. The habitat modules would remain in place after each mission and could be re-provisioned and re-used, thus building a complex of habitats at one or more lunar locations over time, according to a press statement on the study findings. Benson also noted: "We are not surprised by the significant cost savings that our study concludes can be achieved without sacrificing safety and mission support." Growing and last presence In outlining their study findings, SpaceDev has blueprinted a conceptual mission architecture and design for a human servicing mission to the lunar south pole - targeted for the period between 2010 and 2015. The length of stay on the Moon would be seven or more days - depending on cost, practicality and other issues. The SpaceDev study explored a range of technologies that would be needed: hardware that exists now, is currently under development, and proposed technology that NASA or other nations could spearhead, or might be developed by the private sector in time to be incorporated into lunar operations. The SpaceDev study underscores a key finding: A combination of technology already under development by companies could be combined to create a growing and lasting presence at the Moon at costs significantly lower than those proposed by other organizations. Armchair astronauts Along with a look at how best to stage Earth/Moon transportation, one novel approach to dispatching people onto the Moon is the "rocket chair." The rocket chair idea as envisioned by SpaceDev would be modular and dual purpose. The hardware could land small lunar observatories or other science gear on the lunar terrain. It could also lower individuals from lunar orbit onto the Moon. According to a SpaceDev, the rocket chairs have the added feature of carrying sufficient propellant to ascend back to the command module for the return trip to Earth. In fact, on the way to the Moon -- should a problem develop -- rocket chairs, attached to the outbound capsule -- have enough fuel to return the capsule to Earth for a direct atmospheric reentry. "If we are correct about our lunar mission cost estimates, our type of human mission could have forty people visiting the Moon for the cost of NASA's first mission," Benson concluded.

Private enterprise solves moon exploration- the government should focus on exploration of deep space. Jain, 2011 [4/20/11, Naveen, Founder:-Moon Express, Intelius, InfosSpace “Naveen Jain: Our Sputnik Moment: US Entrepreneurs Needed for the "Space Race" www.tfdnews.com/.../93401-naveen-jain-our-sputnik-moment-us-entrepreneurs-needed-for-space-race.htm) NH

While Kennedy exhorted Americans to throw their support behind the government's efforts to reach the Moon, President Obama has made it clear that this job now belongs to private enterprise. In his 2011 State of the Union speech, he referred to this generation's "Sputnik moment" -- that is, the realization that a foreign superpower could usurp our economic leadership position. The president has indicated that the private sector should take over the job of Moon exploration, so now's the time to use private enterprise know-how to tap into resources beyond those of the Earth. There have been some steps in the right direction. NASA has committed $30 million to buy information that is gleaned from future missions to the Moon; the money has been contracted to six teams who are also competing for the Google Lunar X PRIZE, managed by the X PRIZE Foundation. That's a good beginning, but government and private enterprise need additional mechanisms to find funding, and make government expenditures for data worth the investment. As Obama has logically said, NASA's mission should focus on exploring deep space, and private companies should take on

29

http://www.tfdnews.com/.../93401-naveen-jain-our-sputnik-moment-us-entrepreneurs-needed-for-space-race.htm

http://www.space.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled.htm

http://www.space.com/1793-private-sector-cost-lunar-plan-unveiled.htm


the task of building ships to carry cargo and passengers to the International Space Station, and to the Moon. Rocket companies can get in on this market, as can mining companies. The time may be right to think about going to the Moon as a business rather than a hobby. That's the goal of Moon Express, a new company of which I am a cofounder. We're working on building vehicles that can deliver payloads to the Moon and search the lunar surface for precious materials. Why does this discussion of space exploration matter now, especially at a time when so many problems demand our attention here on this planet? Are we trying to go back to the Moon just because we can or is there a benefit to the world in lunar exploration? The answer is the latter. Moon exploration promises to yield new energy sources that could finally break our hold on fossil fuel, and our overdependence on sometimes hostile nations that control its supply. But this time around, we don't need to rely on government funding to fuel Moon exploration -- we can encourage private entrepreneurs to take on this role. The value in Moon exploration comes in part from the presence of valuable resources such as Helium-3, a source of energy that is rare on Earth but is abundant on the Moon. It can "generate vast amounts of electrical power without creating the troublesome radioactive byproducts produced in conventional nuclear reactors," a Popular Mechanics article explains. In addition, platinum is present on the Moon, and could be mined for use in energy applications, where it is a key catalyst for fuel-cell vehicles. If China and Russia succeed in their goals to obtain Helium-3 and other rare resources for the development of energy, the U.S. could end up relying on these countries for its own energy needs. That's a tricky thing from a political standpoint: What happens if our relations with these countries turn sour? What happens if Russia and China decide to severely restrict the sale of Helium-3 to other countries, which will drive prices sky-high? We'll be in the same boat that we're in now, where we are beholden to oil-rich countries that are often in turmoil. However, if we allow private enterprise to explore and take advantage of the Moon's resources, we may set ourselves on the road to energy independence. To re-launch our space program, we need private enterprise to step into the void. Government funding only needs to take us to the point where the technology has been developed to get us to the Moon -- and we already have that. It's a model that's been used successfully in the past: the military first developed the Internet, and private enterprise then seized on its commercial potential; the same thing occurred with GPS technology. Naturally, there are barriers to entrepreneurs leading the charge to the Moon. For one thing, ownership is always a point of discussion -- but the fact is that "everyone" and "no one" owns the Moon. Much like when mining resources from international waters (as in fishing), entrepreneurs would need to respect the rights of other business and government players. There is legal precedent for explorers finding and keeping resources that they have uncovered via private investment. There's also the question of whether we can transport resources from the Moon in a cost-effective manner. Perhaps the cost of rocket launches -- by far the greatest expense for a Moon mission -- will come down as more entrepreneurs move into this market, or new technology will make them cheaper. It's even possible to create rocket fuel from resources on the Moon, which would slash return costs and even lower launch costs from Earth. On the other hand, mining and transporting these resources back to the Earth could depress prices as supplies grow, making such ventures less appealing to entrepreneurs. As with all private market endeavors, many will want to take a wait-and-see approach to the Moon's market potential. But therein lies the opportunity for early movers who apply entrepreneurship to the opening of whole new markets, and in the case of the Moon, a whole new world.

SOLVES – LUNAR MISSIONS Commercial services that are difficult to carry out on earth—such as biological research—can be done on the moon and will create significant economic benefits. Worden, a Fellow in the office of Senator Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, former Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, LA Air Force Base, staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration’s National Space Council, he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs, author/co-author of more than 150 papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic studies, scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, 2004 (Simon, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision,” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf)These are the significant things could be done with microsatellites that only weigh a few hundred pounds. Again, this is a start at least on private sector development of space exploration, not so much for private profit making, but to provide the government with a service . Now we may turn to more interesting profit-oriented exploration. A couple of such true space profit-making endeavors are ongoing, such as suborbital/orbital tourism. New orbital and deep-space activities could also turn a commercial profit. I would suggest that the next one might be the 10 exploration and use of the lunar poles . About a decade ago I was in a discussion with Edward Teller, and anybody who knew him knows that that’s quite an intense experience, and I asked him why we should go to the moon. He said that the main resource the moon has is that there is nothing there. I asked him what he meant. He said, “Well, there’s no EPA there, there’s no Government regulation.” He went on to say that there are lots of things that are pretty dangerous to work on, but that may have pretty big payoffs. He said that nuclear, biological, and even cyber research is going to be increasingly difficult to conduct on the Earth just because people live here. Developing these dangerous technologies may be something that an automated station could do: develop new nuclear capabilities, new reactors, or maybe biological processes in which we need a much better isolation than we could ever get in the best Centers for Disease Control lab. These are the kinds of technological development that may have big payoffs.

A lunar commercial enterprise would provide all the development needed for successful subsequent operations.Schmitt, Chairman of Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc, 2003 (Harrison H, Space Ref, Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on Lunar Exploration, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924)Science thus will be one of several ancillary profit centers for the business, but at a cost to scientists much below that of purely scientific effort to return to the Moon or explore Mars. Technology and facilities required for success of a lunar commercial enterprise, particularly heavy lift launch and fusion technologies, also will enable the conduct, and reduce the cost of many space activities in addition to science. These include exploration and settlement of Mars, asteroid interception and diversion, and various national security initiatives.

30



SOLVES – LUNAR MINING CP solves moon development and mining through creation of an independent subsidized entity. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NH

A SunSat Corporation has no business reason to and should not be permitted to pursue off- target enterprises and endeavors, including lunar development. Its first action would be to design and build an SSP demonstration satellite. SunSat’s focus should be developing SSP - - its market and associated technology, such as wireless power transfer. However, an appropriate encapsulation of that risk into forms which would work for the mutual public and private benefit of many could begin with the formation of a Lunar Development Authority (LDA). In particular, some space analysts, notably Gerard O’Neill78, have concluded that if some preliminary lunar development were subsidized, such as through the intent of current President Bush’s “Moon, Mars and Beyond” plan, photovoltaic cells might be provided to an SSPS development at lower cost than the earth could provide these. These cells, manufactured primarily from lunar regolith79 would be useful to moon development, as well. Lunar fiberglass production is another of the many useful products that have been investigated.80 Rather than lift such large masses of components, such as photovoltaic cells, the primary component by weight of SSPs, from earth to GSO, it may be shown to be more profitable to collect raw materials from the lunar surface, and even from asteroids and comets in convenient orbits. The energy cost to transport a pound of cargo to GSO from the moon is twenty times smaller than the energy costs to transport a pound from earth. So if shipping costs from earth to GSO are $100 per kilogram; once the infrastructure is in place on the moon, shipping costs from the moon to GSO would be $5 per kilogram. This is a core argument and rationale, as many millions of tonnes of photovoltaic “fabric” are required to build an SSP system. If America and other nations intend to return to the moon to stay, this purpose would seem most reasonable. Of course, first developing such an industrial capacity on the moon would first be required, probably through subsidy under an organization like a LDA. By way of comparison, it is possible to travel from the earth to the moon in 3 days, with favorable launch windows available every day. Travel to Mars, however, requires about 270 days with launch windows available every twenty-six months, when Mars’ orbit moves it closer the earth. Telesurgery or telepresence to the moon is very possible. Telesurgery or telepresence to Mars is practically impossible due to the long telecommunications delay. In a larger sense, continuing to improve and enhance telepresence, such as telerobotic construction of SSP or the servicing of satellites, such as CX OLEV intends to do, builds critical capabilities for remote space operations. As we will examine in detail in a later chapter, telerobotics is a strong and vital field in it’s owned right -- extending human reach by synthetic reality. Telesurgery, for example, with the attending surgeon in the US and the patient in France (with surgical observers) has been accomplished; bridging the Atlantic. Doing telesurgery on the moon from earth could be accomplished as well. The military has been strongly pursuing this capability. Telemining has been fully demonstrated on the earth in working mines. It has been done on Mars, although it is many times easier on the moon since the moon averages 237,000 miles distant, while Mars’ oval orbit takes it from 35 million to 259 million miles distant from Earth. To communication with a robot on either body, it would therefore take about 2.6 seconds for roundtrip communications to the moon 26. minutes for roundtrip communications to Mars Continuing to extend our telepresence capabilities into space activities is essential. Assembly and operation of many space systems, including SSP, would be accomplished telerobotically. For example, as we will discuss in a later chapter and the Lunar Development Authority market below, some aerospace planners have suggested that photovoltaic materials for SSP could be manufactured on the Moon and shipped more cheaply to GSO. This may be possible, since it only requires one twentieth as much energy to read GSO from the Moon as it does earth – if an appropriate encapsulation of that risk can be done and various infrastructure can be subsidized. It is abundantly clear that Americans want to pursue and encourage development on the high frontier. So how would an LDA work? A publicly chartered LDA would share and subsidize the cost of infrastructure needed by cis-lunar businesses to facilitate the rapid development of all. Separating this infrastructure development would reduce the risk attached to each and make a massive undertaking manageable. Candidate infrastructure areas might include: transport, water, air, shelter, ...power supply, meteorite defense, photovoltaic cell production legal other services & commodities These infrastructure support contracts would support the nascent cis-lunar commercial manufacturing and other services. Under such special circumstances a separate lunar photovoltaic material manufacturer may very well be chartered to become a PV provider to a SunSat type corporation(s). New industries such as tourism to the moon might be financed. An “Olympics on the Moon” in one sixth gravity would see college pole vaulters “easily” clear a hundred feet! (Imagine the thrill of aiming/looking for the landing pad from a hundred feet up!) The advertising and television rights to the first Lunar Olympics could finance the construction of a lunar hotel and sports facility, where the Olympics would be held - under LDA auspices. The most effective and beneficial method of preventing NASA from competing with the private sector is to give the Agency a new mission, mandate and focus to turn its energies toward. To fully respond to the President’s Moon, Mars and Beyond initiative we should break off a chunk of NASA, make it a public/private corporation and dedicate it lunar development - the LDA. In actuality, the LDA could be formed first. Under its charter it could select NASA’s assets and budgets appropriate for lunar development and serving the common interest of subsidized Congressionally targeted commercial lunar interests. NASA funded a Transformational Space Corp. (“t/Space”) proposed lunar development architectural study of market-based competition, spurred initially by NASA incentives. In the t/Space scenario, companies would design, build and own the lunar infrastructure (vehicles, habitats, power stations, greenhouses and the like) from which NASA will buy services to support its explorers. If t/Space continues to win follow-on contracts, and Gump estimates that t/Space needs $500 million to complete its CXV by 2009, t/Space won't compete with big aerospace effort to build the next- generation CEV -- NASA's primary space-launch system; it will just quietly build a backup machine more quickly and at a fraction of the cost. “We are trying hard not to claim to be a space-shuttle replacement; we are a Soyuz replacement,” Gump said, “a simple craft to ferry people up and back rather than a self-propelled space station like the shuttle.”81

31





SOLVES – LUNAR MINING Private investors should lead space development and lunar mining. Schmitt, Chairman of Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc, 2003 (Harrison H, Space Ref, Testimony of Hon. Harrison H. Schmitt: Senate Hearing on Lunar Exploration, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10924)I must admit to being skeptical that the U.S. Government can be counted on to make such a "sustained commitment" absent unanticipated circumstances comparable to those of the late 1950s and early 1960s. Therefore, I have spent much of the last decade exploring what it would take for private investors to make such a commitment. At least it is clear that investors will stick with a project if presented to them with a credible business plan and a rate of return commensurate with the risk to invested capital. My colleagues at the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the Interlune-Intermars Initiative, Inc. believe that such a commercially viable project exists in lunar helium-3 used as a fuel for fusion electric power plants on Earth. Global demand and need for energy will likely increase by at least a factor of eight by the mid-point of the 21st Century. This factor represents the total of a factor of two to stay even with population growth and a factor of four or more to meet the aspirations of people who wish to significantly improve their standards of living. There is another unknown factor that will be necessary to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, whether warming or cooling, and the demands of new, energy intensive technologies. Helium has two stable isotopes, helium 4, familiar to all who have received helium-filled baloons, and the even lighter helium 3. Lunar helium-3, arriving at the Moon as part of the solar wind, is imbedded as a trace, non-radioactive isotope in the lunar soils. It represents one potential energy source to meet this century's rapidly escalating demand. There is a resource base of helium-3 of about 10,000 metric tonnes just in upper three meters of the titanium-rich soils of Mare Tranquillitatis. This was the landing region for Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11 in 1969. The energy equivalent value of Helium-3 delivered to operating fusion power plants on Earth would be about $4 billion per tonne relative to today's coal. Coal, of course, supplies about half of the approximately $40 billion domestic electrical power market. These numbers illustrate the magnitude of the business opportunity for helium-3 fusion power to compete for the creation of new electrical capacity and the replacement of old plant during the 21st Century. Past technical activities on Earth and in deep space provide a strong base for initiating this enterprise. Such activities include access to and operations in deep space as well as the terrestrial mining and surface materials processing industries. Also, over the last decade, there has been historic progress in the development of inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Progress there includes the production of over a milliwatt of steady-state power from the fusion of helium-3 and deuterium. Steady progress in IEC research as well as basic physics argues strongly that the IEC approach to fusion power has significantly more commercial viability than other technologies pursued by the fusion community. It will have inherently lower capital costs, higher energy conversion efficiency, a range of power from a few hundred megawatts upward, and little or no associated radioactivity or radioactive waste. It should be noted, however, that IEC research has received no significant support as an alternative to Tokamak-based fusion from the Department of Energy in spite of that Department's large fusion technology budgets. The Office of Science and Technology Policy under several Administrations also has ignored this approach. On the question of international law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, that law is permissive relative to properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors. Under the 1967 Treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but national sovereignty cannot be asserted over the mining area. If the Moon Agreement of 1979, however, is ever submitted to the Senate for ratification, it should be deep sixed. The uncertainty that this Agreement would create in terms of international management regimes would make it impossible to raise private capital for a return to the Moon for helium-3 and would seriously hamper if not prevent a successful initiative by the United States Government. The general technologies required for the success of this enterprise are known. Mining, extraction, processing, and transportation of helium-3 to Earth requires innovations in engineering, particularly in light-weight, robotic mining systems, but no known new engineering concepts. By-products of lunar helium-3 extraction, largely hydrogen, oxygen, and water, have large potential markets in space and ultimately will add to the economic attractiveness of this business opportunity. Inertial electrostatic confinement (IEC) fusion technology appears be the most attractive and least capital intensive approach to terrestrial fusion power plants, although engineering challenges of scaling remain for this technolgy. Heavy lift launch costs comprise the largest cost uncertainty facing initial business planning, however, many factors, particularly long term production contracts, promise to lower these costs into the range of $1-2000 per kilogram versus about $70,000 per kilogram fully burdened for the Apollo Saturn V rocket. A business enterprise based on lunar resources will be driven by cost considerations to minimize the number of humans required for the extraction of each unit of resource. Humans will be required, on the other hand, to prevent costly breakdowns of semi-robotic mining, processing, and delivery systems, to provide manual back-up to robotic or tele-robotic operation, and to support human activities in general. On the Moon, humans will provide instantaneous observation, interpretation, and assimilation of the environment in which they work and in the creative reaction to that environment. Human eyes, experience, judgement, ingenuity, and manipulative capabilities are unique in and of themselves and highly additive in synergistic and spontaneous interaction with instruments and robotic systems (see Appendix A). Thus, the next return to the Moon will approach work on the lunar surface very pragmatically with humans in the roles of exploration geologist, mining geologist/engineer, heavy equipment operator/engineer, heavy equipment/robotic maintenance engineer, mine manager, and the like. During the early years of operations the number of personnel will be about six per mining/processing unit plus four support personnel per three mining/processing units. Cost considerations also will drive business to encourage or require personnel to settle, provide all medical care and recreation, and conduct most or all operations control on the Moon.

32


SOLVES – MARS NASA could never do a mission to Mars – only the private industry can fund and build the technology necessary. Vieru, 2011, Science Editor, (Tudor, “Corporations Could Finance Mission to Mars” http://news.softpedia.com/news/Corporations-Could-Finance-Mission-to-Mars-183869.shtml, Acc 7/25/2011) NHIn other words, we have the desire, the will and the technology to embark on this groundbreaking trip, but no money to do it with. The cost of sending humans to Mars is estimated to be about $160 billion. The American space agency could never hope to muster up this huge amount of money, so it proposes that corporate partners be put in the loop. If their plan materializes, then astronauts could descend on Mars from a spacecraft called Microsoft Explorer or Google Search Engine. The exorbitant amount of money needed for exploring our neighboring planet also includes the costs associated with setting up a permanent colony there. Understandably, governments will never be able to get the type of resources they need to support such a plan, even if they decide to work together. In the $160 billion price tag, NASA scientists included the spacecraft phase, tests associated with determining the medical health and psychological issues of a future crew, the creation of a Martian outpost, as well as the colonization of the planet, explains Joel Levine. The expert holds an appointment as a senior research scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center. The facility plays a crucial role in approving the use of manned spacecraft outside Earth's atmosphere. One possible avenue for getting the mission funds could be the licensing of toys, games, books, movies, clothing lines, and broadcasting rights. Selling land and potential mineral resources on Mars could also help generate the funds. “The solution is marketing, merchandising, and corporate sponsorships, which is something NASA has never done before. It's a whole new economic plan for financing a journey to Mars and what will become the greatest adventure in the history of the human race,” Levine argues.

SOLVES – MICROSATELLITES 33

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Corporations-Could-Finance-Mission-to-Mars-183869.shtml

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Corporations-Could-Finance-Mission-to-Mars-183869.shtml


Private entities can carry out space missions—microsatellites are a specific example. Worden, a Fellow in the office of Senator Brownback on detail from the University of Arizona where he is a Research Professor of Astronomy, former Director of Transformation at the Space and Missiles Systems Center, LA Air Force Base, staff officer for initiatives in the first Bush administration’s National Space Council, he spearheaded efforts to revitalize our civil space exploration and earth monitoring programs, author/co-author of more than 150 papers in astrophysics, space science and strategic studies, scientific co-investigator for two NASA space lab missions, 2004 (Simon, Marshall Institute, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision,” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf)Now since I’m a technical guy by background, I’d like to talk about some of the new technical aspects of space exploration. I’m not going to go into these in detail, but there has been another revolution in the last few years in so-called “microsatellites.” A typical satellite today weighs thousands to tens of thousands of pounds. Over the last few years, there has been a lot of effort, and I am sad to say most of it not in the United States, to do some pretty significant things with satellites that weigh 50 to 100 pounds each. Major efforts in this technology have been made and major accomplishments have been achieved. 8 Satellite Size vs. Capability Satellite C 0.1 lass & Mission Capabilities 10 100 10,000 1 Operational National Assets Commercial Communication Satellites University & Experiment Class Satellite Weight (kg) Nano Sats Large, “Operational” Satellite Small Sat Micro Sats MicroSats in the <100 kg Class can Now Perform Valuable Niche Missions Tactical Satellites (Historically University & Experiment Class) 1,000 Demo/Experiment Missions (“Low” Cost Class of DoD & NASA) Also Commercial LEO Comms. WindSat -Wind Speed Clementine-Moon Map PC Sat STARSHINE CUBESATs ORBCOMM TiPS CHIPSat MOST Iridium GlobalStar MilStar, IntelSat6 6.4x3.6x11.8m 4600kg, Hubble,etc. Figure 3 For example, the Israeli imaging satellite, OFEQ, only weighs about 400 or 500 pounds and it produces images that are darn good – sub 1- meter resolution. The ability to carry out missions in space for a few million dollars versus a few hundred million is significant . Figure 3 shows some of the efforts that have been done in the U.S. which show that the cost of a satellite can get down to a few million dollars and do significant things. In 2002, there were a dozen of these microsatellites launched around the world, but sad to say none of them were American. Some of these were launched by space powers like Algeria, the University of Rome and so forth. (Figure 4) One of the points I am making here is that space isn’t just for rich countries anymore. It’s for everybody and the ability to put things into space for a few million dollars privately already exists. We also want to point out that many of the robotic activities that are being talked about in the President’s exploration vision could be done with microsatellites.

SOLVES – MODELING The CP gets modeled internationally.Rodriguez ’95 – (February 1995, ProQuest, Satellite Communications. Atlanta: Feb 1995. Vol. 19, Iss. 2; pg. 30, 2 pgs, “From outer space to cyberspace ... the US should lead the way”) NHSome 30 years ago the United States Congress, at the urging of then-president Kennedy, set the stage for the creation of the first international satellite organization (ISO). Intelsat was then, and to a fairly large degree remains, an American experiment, created to develop and exploit a new, largely American technology. Although the impetus for establishing Intelsat was more closely related to cold War politics than industrial policy, nonetheless, no one doubts that Intelsat has more than fulfilled its policy and technology goals, much to the credit of the United States. It is also undeniable that Intelsat has established a virtually ubiquitous network of interconnected capitals and major world

34



trading centers. It was equally successful, moreover, in achieving the true aim of American policy makers in 1962 --beating the Russians in the race to global space communications. It is ironic, however, that it was PanAmSat that beamed into our living rooms real-time footage of the tumbling of the Berlin wall. A true sign that "times have changed." By 1989, when PanAmSat pulled off this media coup, Intelsat had already over-achieved its original technical raison d'etre, and in fact, the entire world of communications had undergone several post-1962 technology revolutions. Intelsat had broadened global interconnectivity beyond anyone's fathom at the time of Telstar, but by now, so has underwater fiber optic cable, private satellite systems, and domestic and transborder satellites. Commercial low Earth orbiting satellites will soon deliver the metaphoric "global village." Intelsat and Inmarsat have met their technological objectives; however, the most ambitious achievements in telecommunications technology and systems applications have resulted from private entrepreneurs risking capital to leapfrog competitors. It is no accident that most post-1962 telecommunications developments have had their genesis in the United States, spawned in large measure by the pro-competitive communications policies of every U.S. Administration of the past several decades. The private sector, free to invest and experiment, has taken us from outer space to cyberspace with minimal government intervention or protection. Why then does our Government continue to endorse and coddle U.S. participation in governmentally-protected ISOs? Intelsat and Inmarsat have proven their ability to respond to intra- and inter-modal competition. Since the advent of separate satellite systems, Intelsat has more than doubled its satellite fleet, lowered its rates on "competitive routes," and has even virtually given away free transponders in its planned domestic service. Fiber optic cable, Intelsat's true "competitor," continues to expand to all reaches of the globe. Despite its demonstrated ability to respond to these competitive pressures, Intelsat continues to operate under its intergovernmental cloak, immune from the anticompetitive sanctions which would ordinarily safeguard the very free market responsible for the true telecommunications revolution. Intelsat, Inmarsat and other ISOs, however, cannot be blamed for protecting their status. It is the responsibility of policy makers to set the ground rules and to modify these rules to suit the circumstances of the times. The policy makers of 1962 were awed by the vision of worldwide interconnection with only three geostationary satellites, and set out to make this vision a reality. The policy makers of 1995 ought to follow this example and give Intelsat and Inmarsat the freedom to risk capital and reach for the limits of technology unencumbered by bureaucratic inertia and governmental oversight. In other words, the United States created Intelsat and was largely responsible for Inmarsat's coming into being; the United States should now take the lead in promoting the privatization and degovernmentalization of both organizations . Instead of sitting back while others set the agenda and define the issues, our Government should be ahead of everyone else in explaining the benefits of privatization to investors, other governments and users of ISO services. Vice President Gore has already sounded the battle cry for privatization. In March of 1994, he challenged the world telecommunications community to create the Global Information Infrastructure. He suggested the GII could be brought about by adhering to five basic principles: relying on private investment, encouraging competition instead of monopolies, creating a flexible and transparent regulatory framework, promoting open access, interconnection and inter-operability of networks, and achieving true universal service. Applying these principles to ISOs leads to only one conclusion: privatization. Beyond Vice President Gore's wise challenge, one only has to look to the results of pro-competitive, free market policies on the telecommunications landscape in the United States. Examples abound to develop a very convincing presentation for the most skeptical audience. Even developing countries, which often are most reticent to accept our model, are in many cases becoming believers. Who would have ever imagined that privatization of telecommunications would sweep across the South American continent? However, with Chile as an example, neighboring governments could not help but want similar results for their citizens. Concern for developing country reaction is thus not a legitimate excuse for maintaining the ISO status quo. Vice President Gore's speech in Buenos Aires was not only lauded by developed and developing countries, his five principles were adopted by the Conference as part of a long-term program to improve telecommunications infrastructure development. Granted, at a recent Intelsat Assembly of Parties, the United States suggestion that Intelsat commence the process of privatization was not well received. That was an unfortunate situation, but probably due more to last minute preparations and lack of advance work than representative of universal attitudes toward ISO privatization. Blind reverence to an ill-defined notion of "universal service" is a likewise unpersuasive justification for maintaining ISO status quo. No ISO has ever -- or will ever -- achieve the illusive goal of "universal service." The closest Intelsat has come to this notion is its occasional blanketing of the world with coverage of lunar landings, Papal visits or World Cup extravaganzas. This is not the universal service which suggests a phone in every remote village. True universal service is more likely to be achieved in the GII vision of interconnected and interoperable multiple networks comprised of various media, privately funded and privately operated. U.S. policy makers should note that the directors general of Intelsat and Inmarsat have recently taken the pulpit to preach the value of privatization to their organizations. To those who run these organizations, it is clear that their survival in the long term depends on their ability to react quickly to changing economic and technological developments. ISOs will also need the freedom to expedite decision-making without unnecessary governmental meddling. This can only come about if the organizations cast off their governmental shroud, adopt commercial practices, and learn to operate in a competitive environment. Owner/investors must take risks but must also have the opportunity to recoup gains and trade shares freely. With privatization showing positive results virtually everywhere it has been encouraged, and with the ISOs themselves initiating this dialogue, the United States should take the lead in setting the agenda for this debate and use its international political credibility and know-how in support of this undertaking. Likewise, the United States must ensure that "privatization" does not result in less government oversight and continued privileges and immunities. Inmarsat has recently demonstrated how it can benefit from the best of all worlds by creating a quasi-private affiliate while preserving most of the benefits of government protection. This is not privatization. The United States created the concept of inter-governmental telecommunications services provider. It is now the responsibility of the U.S. Government to grab hold of the policy reins once again, and ensure that the unleashing of the ISOs onto the information superhighway will not force entrepreneurial and innovative new satellite communications providers off the road.

SOLVES – SOLAR SAILS The private sector solves solar sail development – it’s the only way to develop the tech under a tight budgetGilster, The Tau Zero Foundation, ‘11 (Paul, “Solar Sail Competition A Possibility” 2/22/06 http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=552)

A solar sail competition to drive research? It’s a great idea, and one that has been explored in the past. Indeed, a whole variety of groups have looked into the possibility, from France’s Union pour la Promotion de la Propulsion Photonique (U3P) to Russia’s Space Regatta Consortium and the Aero-Club de France. And official rules for the Luna Cup were approved by the International Astronautical Federation at the World Space Congress in August of 1992, outlining a solar sail race to the Moon. Now I’m looking at a NASA announcement passed along by James Benford that outlines prize competitions to be conducted under the agency’s Centennial Challenges umbrella. To quote from the document, “By making awards based on actual achievements instead of proposals, Centennial Challenges seeks novel and lower-cost solutions to engineering obstacles in civil space and aeronautics from new sources of innovation in industry, academia, and the public.” The challenge possibilities are outlined in a NASA Request for Comments (RFC) document that explores competitions in a number of areas, ranging from low-cost space suits to lunar night power sources. And the one that has caught Benford’s eye involves solar sails. Here’s the relevant information: The Station-Keeping Solar Sail Challenge is designed to promote the development of solar sail technology and the commercial services that may result from the ability to operate in novel orbits such as artificial Lagrange points. The Station-Keeping Solar Sail Challenge has two prizes. To win Prize One and the $2,500,000 purse, a Team must be the first to deploy a solar Sailcraft, demonstrate a resultant trajectory acceleration change of at least .05 millimeters per second squared, and fly along a trajectory that will pass through a defined target located at the first Sun-Earth Lagrange point (L1). To win Prize Two and the $2,500,000 purse,

35

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/118924-OTHER-001-001.doc

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=118923

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=118923


a Team must enter a defined region above or below the ecliptic plane at L1 and remain there for 90 consecutive days. We’ve all had an education in what prize challenges can do for technology through the success of the Ansari X Prize competition and earlier, oft invoked challenges like the Orteig Prize that Lindbergh clinched by flying the Atlantic. I also like the wonderful science fiction association with Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Wind from the Sun,” originally published in 1964 under the title “Sunjammer.” Using yacht racing as the metaphor, Clarke told a bold tale of a race to the Moon using solar sails and largely introduced the sail concept to the general public (although, to be sure, Jack Vance’s “Gateway to Strangeness” and Cordwainer Smith’s haunting “The Lady Who Sailed the Soul” had appeared several years earlier in Amazing Stories and Galaxy respectively). We must hope for keen interest in a sail competition as one way to keep the technology developing in a time of steep budget cuts. Getting private industry and academia reenergized over solar sail work (especially after the failure of the Planetary Society’s Cosmos 1) cannot help but advance the state of the art, and it is becoming increasingly clear that solar sails are one area where the private sector’s contribution can be immense.

SOLVES – SPS CP Solves Solar Power- only an industry that provides satellites in large enough quantity can make SSP cost effective- airlines prove. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NHWorld electricity consumption, increasing at 2.3 percent per year, is projected to nearly double from 2001 to 2025 , from 13.3 trillion kilowatt-hours (Kwh) to 23.1 trillion Kwh.67 The U. S. generated 3.8 trillion Kwh in 2003. An SSP System large enough to provide 10 trillion Kwh per year, will require about 1.2 Terawatts of power to be delivered by the SSPS. This requires about 8,400,000 tonnes of payload. If we had one hundred and forty space freighters per day taking off from spaceports operating three hundred days each year that would be 42,000 flights per year. With each space freighter carrying 10 metric tonnes of payload bound for GSO, we could deliver the required cargo in twenty years. This launch market would be over one thousand times larger than today’s commercial launch market, compared to the FAA’s Global Commercial Launch Demand Forecast above. Many current suborbital systems are viewed by their designers, such as Burt Rutan, as precursors of the low-cost orbital space vehicles needed for this effort. Building an SSPS is not intrinsically different than building another large economy-sized-array of communications satellites . Developing countries aim towards the average supply capacity in developed countries of 1 kW per person.68 A one-Megawatt generator can support about one thousand residential people. About two more kilowatts per person are used in developed countries for other supporting commercial and industrial needs. A NASA commissioned study of SSP launch costs set the ground-rule for the researchers that only one 1.2 GW SSP satellite was to be delivered to GSO per year for thirty years – an exceedingly constrained proposal to serve the electric energy market, considering that: (1) this imposed market restraint made it exceedingly difficult for the researchers to define a successful space transportation business model to successfully serve that market and (2) the immense and growing energy market’s unserved need for

36





clean baseload power aggravates looming associated environmental issues. The study forecast an aggressive price goal of $400/kg of payload to LEO, at 500 flights per year - roughly corresponding to 2.5¢/kW-hr.69 They further forecast $800/kg of payload to GSO, assuming that boosting the payload from LEO would cost an equivalent amount. In order to build a commercially successful solar power satellite system, a company must build many satellites. They could not, for example, build only one Boeing 747 and expect it to be a commercial success, because its development costs would have to be paid with a single sale. The single plane would cost billions. Even if the plane were filled on every flight, tickets would cost as much as new car. How many people would fly from New York to Chicago at $20,000 a seat? Parts and maintenance would be astronomically priced. Realistic business models demand that hundreds or thousands of such planes or satellites be built. Like the Boeing 747, the only feasible and acceptable business plan is to build enough planes or satellites to more fully satisfy the market and enable the commensurate development costs to be spread across the fleet. By observing the economics of airline operations most planners believe it will be more economical to build and launch these SSP satellites using many flights of vehicles with relatively small payloads. This has the major advantage of enabling economical, routine, airline-like operations. That is, the economies of large volume production and large volume operation are more important than the advantages of large unit launch size. This is only achieved with relatively smaller vehicles.70 The aviation industry demonstrates this clearly: for decades aircraft have been developed that are small enough for the demand for air travel to justify making and operating them in large numbers. It is only as the demand for air travel has reached its present high level of tens of millions of flights per year that very large aircraft have come to be built. EIA’s 2004 forecast projects world energy consumption to increase by 54 percent from 2001 to 2025, i.e. from 404 quads (quadrillion Btu)) in 2001 to 623 quads in 2025. Driving this are the fast developing Asian countries, forecast to increase their Gross Domestic Product by 5.1 percent per year – from refrigerators, cooking devices, telephones and lighting to innumerable industrial manufacturing processes. Not coincidentally, this yields both higher productivity and standards of living, as these are naturally linked. Coal-fired plants accounted for 53% of US 2003 electric generation; nuclear 21%; natural gas 15%; hydroelectricity 7%; oil 3%; biomass and all "others", including geothermal, just 1%. It is especially important to note that at EIA’s forecasted growth rates, renewables such as wind power and ground-level solar cells are not projected to make a substantial contribution to U.S. or global energy supplies, even by 2025. They reason these new renewables cannot substitute for SSP is because they are not baseload-available. Wind power and ground-level solar cells are available from 25% to 30% of a typical day and some days may be unexpectedly unavailable. They always need to backed up by reliable plants, such as coal, nuclear or other baseload spinning-demand. It is not cost effective to store large quantities of electric energy. Baseload electric energy generation systems, including SSP, require many years to construct in quantity. They are the most capital intensive business extent. Between 1992 and 2002 the low cost of and increased demand for clean natural gas-fired electric generation drove a 61% increase in new gas-fired power generation by electric utilities - 94% of the U. S. increase in natural gas demand during that time. Flat natural gas production, however, has driven natural gas prices to $6 or even $7 per MMBtu and shows no sign of returning to the $2-3 prices per MMBtu typical of the 1990s. The rationale for deregulation evaporated with this massive price increase. In 46 months this natural gas crisis cost U.S. consumers over $130 Billion, according to the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, who have watched as thousands of energy-dependent jobs have fled the U.S.71 If that money were instead spent on SSP, we would be well on our way to solving our global energy and CO2 driven climate change crises.

Private Sector engagement will solve SPS the bestRouge, 7 – Acting Director, National Security Space Office (Joseph D., October 9, 2007, “Space‐Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=100&ved=0CE8QFjAJOFo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2Ffinal-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf&ei=9fIATrqrI83IswbOsOCyDQ&usg=AFQjCNHZbOQGqRh8gMo6OtfDmotWq-XN-w&sig2=MHRakSQig4ZDGoYO00OxRg)

All previous work on Space ‐ Based Solar Power, Solar Power Satellites and/or Space Solar Power should be reviewed . Much of that has already been done for this SBSP Architecture Study and C - 5 many of the writers of these reports have contributed valuable feedback, thoughts and advice to this process. An inventory should be created of who (individuals, corporations and organizations) has the expertise related to the various areas discussed in the studies and who is actively working on the research and development needed to make SBSP a reality. Areas where research is needed must be identified and funded. Debates have arisen amongst the contributors as to the value of various competing technologies. More details on the technological criteria need to be explored and tested. These must be compared and the most practical and viable, focused upon. The private sector should be engaged. The new space companies working on reusable launch, space stations and other technologies should be consulted and encouraged as well as the traditional large aerospace companies. Both may have the vision, creativity and drive necessary to help make SBSP happen. Prizes for solutions to specific issues have been shown to be valuable. Appropriate prizes should be funded and publicized. A board of advisors should be created. It should consist of interested parties from a wide variety of industries who are committed to helping to make SBSP a reality.

SOLVES – TRANSPORT/TOURISM Demand exists for commercial suborbital spaceflight, but Private markets are key- if involved, innovation will be stifled by government beauracracy. Sterner, 2010 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf] NHThere may be, however, a burgeoning market for commercial human suborbital spaceflight. Several companies have announced their plans and begun developing vehicles to carry people into suborbital space. The best known by far is Virgin Galactic, backed by airline and media mogul Richard Branson and based on capabilities created by famed designer Burt Rutan. Virgin Galactic’s launch vehicle is a two-stage system, with an “unconventional” high-altitude aircraft (White Knight 2) carrying a smaller rocket-based craft (Space Ship 2) to 50,000 feet from where it launches Space Ship 2 into suborbital space, before the second craft returns to earth on an aeronautical trajectory and lands at a runway.30 The design is based on Space Ship One, which successfully competed in 2004 for the Ansari X prize to design, build, and fly a commercial spacecraft to suborbital space. Virgin Galactic is already taking deposits against the total price of $200,000 for a suborbital flight, less than four tenths of one percent of the subsidized price of a ticket to LEO. Other companies seeking to enter the market include Blue Origin, founded by Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, and XCOR Aerospace, which has also demonstrated its propulsion technologies. This industry is in its barnstorming phase, with a basic regulatory regime in place to enable it to function, but without the immense bureaucracies and overhead that burden so many government-directed activities. Given time and multiple technical successes, it may evolve sufficiently to create a substantial private demand for personal spaceflight services. At some point, that demand may further evolve into demand for access to LEO. Or, it may not, instead finding an equilibrium akin to that of tourists ascending Mt. Everest. Whether it contributes to the considerably more difficult challenge of expanding a private market for human spaceflight to LEO remains to be seen. If it does, it will come too late to fill the void in U.S. capabilities left by the end of the shuttle program and cancellation of Constellation. The administration also appears not to have fully considered the potential impact of its proposal on the emerging commercial space- human spaceflight industry, which is still in its infancy, may be stifled by them. Of equal concern, it should be noted that the Congress imposed several non-mission related requirements on Constellation, such as maintaining the workforce and using as much shuttle-heritage hardware as possible. These kinds of require-

37



ments do not usually contribute to performance or cost-effectiveness, but serve other legitimate public policy goals. There is some indication that leading members of Congress will seek to impose them on the commercial industry if the industry becomes the primary means of carrying Americans to orbit.

CP Solves space tourism and transportation- race to the top has already begun in the private sector. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NHIn Burt Rutan’s opinion, space tourism is not limited to suborbital flights – he intends to provide low-cost space tourism to the moon . Most unusually for the perennially profit challenged aviation industry, Scaled Composites has posted 88 straight profitable quarters. Even while pushing the envelope with innovations such his “carefree-reentry” that stunned his own engineers, Scaled has never suffered a fatal crash. In comparison, the best run major operating airline, Southwest Airlines, has posted 54 straight profitable quarters. Many other companies are also planning to offer competing flights to space. Rutan says discussions are under way for similar deals with four other potential spaceline operators. Billionaire Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic1 has already purchased Burt’s SpaceShipOne technology and plans to begin carrying passengers in 2007. "We're prepared to invest another $100 million to develop this business," says Whitehorn, a director of Virgin Galactic. The first five-passenger flights are planned for 2008, and Virgin Galactic has set ticket prices at $210,000. SpaceShipOne has made possible the business of commercial space travel. Just a month after Virgin Galactic’s service was announced, more than 11,000 people, including "Star Trek" star William Shatner, “Aliens” star Sigourney Weaver and Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Dave Navarro had registered to pay the $190,000 fare for tickets.2, 3, 4 Rutan forecasts that 3,000 "astronauts" will fly by 2010, and by 2020, suborbital flights will become so affordable that 50,000 passengers will have entered space.5 Explaining the size of Virgin Galactic's potential market, Mr. Whitehorn said that the company has received more than 29,000 applications to fly since its announced formation last fall. "That is 29,000 people who said they are willing to pay a deposit of up to $20,000 for spaceflights within a range of prices of up to $200,000. We've also had 100 people who have actually signed 'terms and conditions' with us now to pay the full cost of $200,000 to fly on SpaceShipTwo." 6 Space tourism, like the “barnstormers” during the early years in aviation, appears to be an important contribution toward the low-cost space transportation market. In a 2002 study, Futron had estimated that by 2021 over 15,000 suborbital passengers with potential revenues in excess of $700 million and 60 orbital passengers with revenues $300 million; would exceed $1 Billion per year7 Futron’s numbers now appear low in our perfect hindsight. Virgin Galactic’s fleet will initially consist of five luxury SpaceShipTwo (SS2) class vehicles, each with the same diameter cabin as a Gulfstream V business jet – 6 ft (1.9m) in height and 7ft (2.2m) in width. Each will carry at least five and more likely eight passengers plus a pilot. The seats will fully recline so that even elderly passengers will be able to handle the expected force of six times Earth's gravity (6 Gs) upon descent. Rutan expects SS2 spacecraft to soar to between 84 and 87 miles (135-140 km); a three- hour trip with about three minutes of weightlessness. Roller coaster-type restraint bars will fold out of the way so you can float around. Travelers will be able to do more than watch 1 http://www.virgingalactic.com/ how candy floats around in space – they can fly around themselves. A week's pre-flight training will be required. Scaled Composites, plans to create 3,000 new astronauts a year - per departure point, Rutan adds, and per ship.8 The first flights will leave from the Mojave Desert, but Mojave will not be the only place in the world to buy tickets and fly to space," Rutan said. Passengers may land in a different place from where they took off. A ship could launch near Las Vegas and land in Mojave," Rutan said. "Or, we could launch offshore, start out over the ocean and then... fly over the mountains and land in the desert. Burt Rutan had estimated that “commercial suborbital flights could cost $30,000 to $50,000 initially, and as little as $7,000 to $12,000 in a ‘second generation.“9 Sir Richard Branson appears to have found yet another untapped revenue stream to continue building his Virgin Inc., empire.10 Virgin Atlantic Airlines, Virgin Records, Virgin Mobile, Virgin Cola, ... all 150 companies are profitable. Volvo Cars of North America is giving away a seat on Branson's space craft at Volvo’s www.boldlygo.com website.. In a 30-second Super-Bowl ad, Volvo unveils its Volvo XC90 V8 SUV by comparing its power to a rocket blasting into space.11 XCOR Aerospace has a marketing agreement with Space Adventures, Ltd to offer the first 600 flights to 62 miles (100 km) altitude aboard XCOR's Xerus suborbital vehicle. "Our experience flying the EZ-Rocket airplane has shown we can fly rocket-powered vehicles multiple times per day with a small ground crew," said XCOR CEO Jeff Greason, "We can operate at a fraction of the cost of competitive vehicles."12 Oracle’s Space Sweepstakes’ participants can win a journey to suborbital space from Space Adventures, Ltd., by demonstrating expertise with Oracle's development tools. The prize package’s “total retail value is $138,000 including $35,000 cash” -- implying a discounted price of $103,000 fare for tickets on XCOR’s Xerus sub-orbital flights. 13 Nidar, a premier Norwegian confectioner; American Express’ Hong Kong and United States cardmembers and 7 UP®, all offer consumers opportunities to win or earn “Free” tickets into suborbital space. 14, 15, 16 Rocketplane Ltd., Inc. has also begun taking reservations for customers to ride their 43 foot sub-orbital Rocketplane XP to more than 330,000 feet (100 km+) above the Earth. Rocketplane intends to begin XP flights in early 2007.17

SOLVES – TRANSPORT/TOURISM CP solves transport and tourism- theres already a race to the top in the private sector and constant support will drive down costs of tourism. National Space Society, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NHWe must transition our cis-lunar (between here and the moon) space transportation systems from historically government supported exercises, such as the current Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) “competition”, to the private vehicles, as required by Bigelow Aerospace’s America’s Prize. Only private vehicles can provide the next crucial step to low cost space access. Jules Verne, Europe's first Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spaceship, the most complex space vehicle ever developed in Europe, is almost ready to fly. The 19.7-tonne ATV launches atop an Ariane 5 launcher, carrying between 1500 and 5500 kg of dry cargo to re-supply the ISS. Contained in various sized bags, the cargo will be stored in the 48 cubic meter pressurized section.30 Congress and NASA should exercise their vision and franchise by participating in a serious prize, as the Aldridge Commission recommended - by matching Robert Bigelow in his $50 million America’s Prize . NASA should continue to let Bigelow administer the race, since he is now doing it alone. Elon Musk recommends “strongly supporting and actually substantially expanding upon the proposed Centennial Prizes... No dollar spent on space research will yield greater value for the American people than those prizes.” Mr. Rutan is probably right again; he doesn’t believe NASA is capable of doing a developmental prize: “NASA has a habit of trying to help sub-contractors and contractors by monitoring risks that NASA wouldn’t take themselves. What NASA needs to do is to put out a very difficult goal to achieve and then not monitor it at all. Let those that go after it take their own risks. Maybe they will put someone in charge that knows the benefits of running a prize properly.”31 “We’re developing SpaceShipTwo, a much bigger spaceship, that could carry nine people and allow them to float around the cabin when they are weightless. It would also fly higher, and further down range. So this is going to be a craft that could do sustainable business for a long time, flying thousands of people.” “We will be flying within about two and a half years or so. I think it will be certified and actually in commercial operation in about four years. ... I would like to see affordable travel to the moon before I die, so I am starting relatively soon on developments for orbital-space tourism.” "The flying that America has done in the last 20 years is by far the most expensive way to get to space and the most dangerous. This can't be done with NASA funding. It absolutely has to be privately funded."32 How many billions have been spent in the last three decades building and discarding new space vehicles? We have learned a few things along the way, but most critically we should have learned that it is time to pass the baton to the private sector . Currently, besides CEV, space launch systems under development are the Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles33 (EELV) – Boeing’s Delta IV family and Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V family – and NASA’s shuttle. National Aerospace Plane (NASP) Dyna-Soar DC-X Orbital Space Plane X-30 X-33 X-34 X-38 X-43 Spacelifter STAS NLV Transatmospheric Vehicle (TAV) HLV HLLV Shuttle-C Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) ALS 2nd Gen 3rd Gen ... and now, the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Mitchell Burnside Clapp met Robert Zubrin at an AIAA technical conference in 1993 and described his idea for a new Single-Stage-To-Orbit (SSTO) rocketplane, “Black Horse”. Zubrin revised the design with a new rocket engine and in 1994 mobilized sufficient R&D funds within Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin) to determine that his “Black Colt” was feasible and that the first prototype could be built for $90 million. “Further, NASA suggested that we bid Black Colt

38





for the X-34 concept vehicle, under which NASA would pay $75 million of that $90 million. Martin Marietta management however refused to bid. This angered me a great deal. Here we had a practical concept for a near-term reusable launch vehicle and NASA would pay almost the entire bill for development, and yet – no bid. I protested the decision within the company and got nowhere. Eventually a director took me aside and said, ”Look Bob, it’s a very clever idea, but you’ve got to get the picture. We build Titans. You sell one of these to the Air Force and we’re out of business.”34 Cost and schedule projections for a Two-Stage-To-Orbit (TSTO) reusable launch vehicle had historically been in the range of $30 billion to $50 billion and between 10 - 15 years to develop. The business case for private industry to build such a SSTO or TSTO could not be supported with current (2002) mission model projections.35 "The truth is that I don't think any single company or NASA can truly staff or execute something this large and complex (CEV)," Boeing Vice President Chuck Allen said. "It's going to take a whole lot more capability than I think resides in any one corporate or government entity." Lockheed Martin spent $1.2 billion trying to build the X-33 hypersonic plane, only to have the project canceled when cracks were found in the spacecraft's experimental fuel tanks. Similarly, Orbital Sciences' attempt to build the X-34 was shut down before any hardware was flown.36 Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, testified before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Hearing on Space Shuttle and the Future of Space Launch Vehicles on May 5, 2004: “The past few decades have been a dark age for development of new human space transportation systems. One multi-billion dollar Government program after another has failed. In fact, they have failed even to reach the launch pad, let alone get to space. ... “The obvious barrier to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit is the cost of access to space. This problem of affordability dwarfs all others. If we do not set ourselves on the track of solving it with a constantly improving price per pound to orbit, in effect a Moore's law of space, neither the average American nor their great- great-grandchildren will ever see another planet. “Dollar cost per pound to orbit dropped from $4000 to $1300 between Falcon I and Falcon V. (Musk considers four or five launches per year necessary to achieve those costs . -Ed) Ultimately, I believe $500 per pound or less is very achievable.”37 “The public reaction has been to care less and less about space, an apathy not intrinsic to a nation of explorers, but born of poor progress, of being disappointed time and again. When America landed on the Moon, I believe we made a promise and gave people a dream. “It seemed then that, given the normal course of technological evolution, someone who was not a billionaire, not an astronaut made of "The Right Stuff", but just a normal person, might one day see Earth from space. That dream is nothing but broken disappointment today. If we do not now take action different from the past, it will remain that way.” Congress has fully funded NASA’s budget at $16.2 Billion for 200538. It includes money for resuming Space Shuttle operations, continued assembly of the International Space Station, Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV), and the Space Exploration Initiative - the Moon, Mars and beyond. The space shuttle’s listed cost per launch is $1.1 Billion, or $63,900. per kg39 to Low Earth Orbit (LEO) – a few hundred miles up. Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX, of El Segundo, California, is quoting $12 million per launch, for their Falcon V, or $2,860 per kg.40,41 Both Falcon and Shuttle are partially reusable space vehicles. The shuttle, however, is priced at more than 22 times the price of Musk’s Falcon V!! Of course, this is not surprising. Would you get an estimate to build or repair your spacecraft, car, truck, jet, or locomotive from NASA? No, the government should never be in commercially competitive businesses, from making trucks to raising chickens. It’s time to remove cis-lunar space transportation from NASA’s job description. “Critics might say [SpaceShipOne's suborbital flight] was less impressive because NASA did it forty years ago. That is true, but the SpaceShipOne team did it for $20 million. Today NASA could not put a man in sub orbital space for $20 million. In fact, I don't think they could do it for $200 million. The fact of the matter is that NASA is a government agency and government agencies operate under different conditions and in a different environment than the private sector.” - Congressman Ken Calvert, Chair, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee42

SOLVES – TRANSPORT/TOURISM CP Solves transport- spillover effect of commercial space flight. Collins, Writer at Hosei University, Tokyo, 1993 (Patrick, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Towards Commercial Space Travel, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-12, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml)

One sign of "perestroika" in the space industry is the recently announced joint venture by Lockheed and Krunichev to market the low-cost Proton launch vehicle. Although western governments are trying to protect the markets for their higher-cost launch vehicles, this development should put pressure on western makers of high-cost expendable rockets to consider developing low-cost reusable vehicles . Another sign that the space industry is at last beginning to live up to aviation's example was the 1990 flight of Tokyo Broadcasting Service (TBS) journalist, Akiyaka Toyohiro, to the orbiting space station, MIR. This achieved a significant place in the history of humans' expansion into space. As well as being the first Japanese, and the first journalist to visit space, Akiyama-san's flight was the first commercial space flight by someone outside the space industry. His flight was also strikingly similar to the many pioneering flights in the early days of aviation sponsored by newspaper companies, primarily for the purposes of publicity. As an example, the Mainichi Shimbun company (which today is the parent company of TBS) and the Asahi Shimbun company competed continuously through the 1920s and 30s, sponsoring international competitions, such as for the first flight across the Pacific ocean, and long distance flights. For example the 1937 flight of the "Kamikaze-go" from Tokyo to London was sponsored by the Asahi Shimbun company, while in 1939 the "Nippon-go" made an eastward flight around the world, visiting 30 countries, sponsored by the Mainichi Shimbun. These and similar flights, such as Lindbergh's transatlantic flight, that led to the "Lindbergh boom" in US domestic aviation, played a major role in popularizing passenger flight, by demonstrating that aviation technology was mature enough to provide safe passenger operations. The second such commercial space flight project, the flight of the British Helen Sharman to MIR in 1991, was similar in principle to Akiyama-san's flight, except that it was commercially unsuccessful, leading to a substantial loss on the part of the sponsors. But this is also part of business; investments can lead to losses as well as to profits. After the recent "bubble economy" many companies in Japan are facing unprecedented losses caused by misdirected investment. A small fraction of these losses would be sufficient to pay for the development of a space tourism business. As and when reusable commercial passenger-carrying launch vehicles are developed, they will surely receive a high level of publicity. For this reason they will be very good vehicles for commercial publicity, and it seems probable that there will be many sponsored space flights emulating the early days of commercial flight. Such a pattern of development in the space industry could well have similar benefits for the industry's commercialisation.

Orbiting space hotels will be largely successful if the stays are in high demand. Collins, Writer at Hosei University, Tokyo, 1993 (Patrick, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Towards Commercial Space Travel, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-12, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml)

6 Space hotels An interesting aspect of the future development of commercial travel to low Earth orbit is the relation between the cost of flights to and from orbit, and the cost of staying at an orbiting "hotel". At a target price of some 20,000 Yen per kilogram to low Earth orbit, a passenger flight would cost some 2,000,000 Yen. At this price the launch of an orbital hotel weighing some hundreds of tons would cost some tens of billions of Yen. If the demand for trips to orbit was of the order of 1 million passengers per year, and if passengers were to stay in orbit for 2 or 3 days, there would be a demand for accommodation for between 5,000 and 10,000 people in orbit. This scale would certainly provide manufacturers the opportunity to obtain significant scale

39




economies through mass production of accommodation units. It is worth noting that a "space hotel" would be much easier to design and build than the US/international space station. As an illustration of this, accommodation made from several units of the Skylab space station from the early 1970s, excluding the scientific equipment but including more windows and comfortable fittings, would be satisfactory for an initial hotel. It is difficult to believe that each unit would cost more than a few billion Yen, about the price of a business jet, which is a much more complex vehicle. The total cost of such a hotel, including launch, should therefore be a few tens of billions of Yen, which is comparable to that of a modern office building. If we assume that such a hotel should earn annual revenues of 10% of its cost, or some billions of Yen per year, then if it accommodated some thousands of passengers in a year, the cost of a few days' stay would be of the order of 1,000,000 Yen, or some 50% of the cost of a passenger flight to orbit. This lets us break away from the traditional expendable-missile "ammunition" design and "standing army" operations mindsets, with potential huge benefits to cost and reliability. What's been lacking to date has been the proper combination of reasonable goals (it's DC-3 time, not 747), sensible focussed management, inspired engineering (KISS!), and funding. Much depends on a leap of faith - faith in the studies that show large new markets emerging at lower launch costs to support the necessary higher flight rates - "if you build it, they will come". Market studies do strongly indicate that somewhere around one-tenth of current US launch costs, the market for space launch will reach a tipping point where demand for launches starts expanding fast enough to more than make up for reduced per-launch revenue. The overall launch market will start growing rapidly at that point, as investment in further launch cost reductions changes from a leap of faith to a sure thing. Further cost reductions will drive further market expansion, to the point where the space transport market will rapidly begin to approach the air transport market in economic importance.

SOLVES – TRANSPORT/TOURISM Commercial space flights will be accessible if we get a commercial reusable launch vehicle underway.Collins, Writer at Hosei University, Tokyo, 1993 (Patrick, Journal of Space Technology and Science, Towards Commercial Space Travel, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 8-12, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/towards_commercial_space_travel.shtml)

However, the development of reusable launch vehicles, which is needed both to reduce launch costs and to increase their reliability to the level of aircraft, faces a problem of commercial justification. The present day launch market is very small; a few tens of satellites per year. Consequently a single reusable launch vehicle that could fly even once per week, would be able to launch all of these (although due to political interference in the market, this would be unlikely). Unfortunately there is no good prospect that the demand for satellites will grow very much as the price of launch falls. Indeed, such markets as telecommunications and broadcasting seem likely to shrink under competition from more cost-effective terrestrial systems such as optical fiber cables and cellular telephone networks. Consequently in order to be able to recover the development costs of reusable launch vehicles, the space industry needs a new, much larger market, that would require tens of launches per day. If commercial space travel could become popular enough to reach a scale of the order of one million passengers per year, it could pay for the development of low cost launch vehicles. *assuming 5% interest rate. Wide-bodied jet Passenger launch vehicle Production run 1000 50 Price (billion Yen) 20 100 Flights per year 720 300 Lifetime (years) 20 10 Amortization* (million Yen) 2.2 43 Fuel per flight (million Yen) 2 16 Miscellaneous (million Yen) 2 20 Total (million Yen) 6.2 79 Passengers per flight 300 50 Cost/person (thousand Yen) 21 1600 Passengers per year 200 million 750,000 Table 1: Representative cost targets for space tourism. Table 1 illustrates the powerful effect of accessing such a large market; the development of such a vehicle might be amortized commercially. To reach this market is the key challenge for the space industry today. If it can reduce costs sufficiently, the industry can grow very large, with such important projects as satellite power stations ( SPS) providing environmentally clean electric power on a global scale. This will be the real "space age". On the demand side, we know from modern popular culture that space travel is a popular idea in many countries (4). For example, in recent years some of the most popular video series and films such as Space Battleship Yamato, Star Wars, Mobile Suit Gundam and Star Trek are based in space. Consequently, if space travel was available at the same cost as air travel, it would certainly become a very large market - many tens of millions of customers per year (which is still only a few percent of air travel). However, we also know that flight to orbit will be more expensive than air travel, because the fuel needed to accelerate a person to Mach 25 is approximately that required to transport them around the world. Thus space travel will be a relatively expensive service, and if it is to become widely popular, it will probably be as a "once in a lifetime" experience for many customers, a unique modern equivalent of a "journey to Mecca" in an earlier age. Although one million passengers per year would be very large for the space industry, it is quite small by comparison with modern aviation. However, in order to reach this scale, the cost must be low - less than 2,000,000 Yen per person or 20,000 Yen / kg, about 1% of the cost of launch using present-day expendable rockets. 5 Cost reduction In order to reduce costs to the required extent, we must start to get experience of reusable commercial launch vehicle operations as soon as possible. The only such project currently under way is the McDonnell Douglas DC-X / DC-Y / Delta Clipper project, though a vehicle more like the Pacific American Phoenix would seem more appropriate for passenger travel (5). It is not uncommon for members of companies building expendable rockets to state that VTOVL SSTO rockets are impossible, but their feasibility has been demonstrated incontrovertibly by Hudson (5)(Appendix). The only interesting question is how much it would cost, and how much mass is required, to make an SSTO vehicle fully reusable. In this context it is interesting that, despite government funding of some hundreds of $ billions to date, the space industry has not yet tried to do this in any country. Cost reduction is one of the continual driving forces in commercial industry, since every reduction in cost is a direct addition to profit, and reducing prices below those of competitors is one of the major forms of commercial competition. However, the possible cost of passenger space travel is controversial, with published estimates ranging from $400,000 in 2012 (6); $60,000 in the year 2050 (7); to $10,000 in the 2000s (8). An experienced figure such as Ruppe doubts whether low-cost launch is possible. However, if the space industry does not succeed in reducing launch costs low enough, then space travel will not become a significant business, and the space industry will probably continue as a small-scale, high-cost activity of government researchers. In that case, space will not be a "new frontier" for humans. The DC-X project budget is some $60 million, or less than 0.05% of NASA's annual budget. This shows a lack of interest by US politicians, but it is also perhaps a sign that much can be achieved at relatively low cost. Once reusable launch vehicles are in commercial operation, operating companies will learn continually about improving their operation and reducing costs. When the space industry reaches this stage, the early history of aviation will have many interesting lessons for its further commercial development.

40



POLITICS = NB CP doesn’t link to politics – government can spin it as job-creating.Esther Dyson, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8/2010, “Prepare for Liftoff,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff?page=0,1) NHPolitically, the fuss is mainly about jobs that can help politicians get elected, and not about space exploration itself. The simple solution is some promise that the jobs will not be lost; they will simply be transformed. If no commercial company is willing to hire these workers, then perhaps they could retrain as teachers, an area where the United States desperately needs more scientists and technical people, or in medicine, which requires the same meticulous attention to detail. But the commercial space market will need at least some of them. President Obama and all of us who want to focus on the future should not forget how good the private sector can be at creating both jobs and opportunities.

41



BIPART SUPPORT NASA funding unpopular in the midst of budget cuts- it’s losing support in Congress. Handberg, 6/25/2011, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at the University of Central Florida, (Roger, “The beginning of the end or the end of the beginning? Facing the shuttle’s demise and the future,” The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1890/1, Acc 7/27/2011) NHAll of this occurs against the background of an increasingly partisan congressional war over the federal government budget deficit, the federal debt ceiling, and the Obama healthcare plan that Republicans basically want to repeal. NASA is threatened by the first two disputes because the deficit reduction debate focuses mostly on discretionary spending where NASA represents a fairly large target with relatively weak support from a national constituency. Whether the first two issues can be resolved definitively this year remains an unknown (at the time of this writing in mid-July 2011) but if the debate over deficit reduction is real and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid) and defense spending are held harmless or largely protected from significant cuts, NASA’s problems make it an optimal target for severe budget reductions. Such reductions could render the entire debate over shuttle replacement a moot point; the private option would be the only game in town for the US. Except for legislators located immediately around NASA facilities, there is likely to be severe erosion of congressional support for NASA’s budget when measured against other national priorities. That “vision thing” (the deficiency attributed to President George H.W. Bush) has been a long-standing problem in the US space program. Future directions have largely been destination driven (the Space Exploration Initiative and the Vision for Space Exploration, or the various space science missions in the solar system), an outgrowth of the concern with space “firsts” which characterized the early space race. Now, though, most of the obvious locations have been visited at least by robotic missions, so there is nothing under the sun that is completely new except for sending humans down the same trail. The problem is that there is no political will to drive such missions with their large and likely to escalate costs. The American political process at its best has difficulty with long-term government programs when the same program is revisited each fiscal year for the next budget allocation. With partisan animosity growing, NASA is being sucked into the whirlpool of congressional and presidential politics. The reality is that nothing of major significance is likely to happen until after the 2012 presidential and congressional elections.

42

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1890/1


GINGRICH <3 CP Gingritch supports NASA phase-out because of its bureaucratic and wasteful spending. Whittington ’11- author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Houston Chronicle (5/12/11, Yahoo News, “Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Projects to Continue Exploration” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110512/pl_ac/8463287_newt_gingrich_prefers_space_ prizes_over_nasa_projects_to_continue_exploration) NH

One of the things that makes the presidential candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich notable is that he is one of the few American politicians who has given a great deal of thought to space issues. Gingrich not only disdains now the Apollo model of NASA sending astronauts back to the Moon or to Mars, but has some interesting ideas how to do those things outside the NASA infrastructure, according to a 2006 interview in Space Review. "I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration." Prizes have been used to advance space technology already in the 21st century. The privately funded Ansari X Prize led to the first privately funded space flights in 2004. Google is running a Lunar X Prize that would pay cash to the first private group to land a robot probe on the surface of the Moon. NASA itself has run a series of prizes under the Centennial Challenge Program. Gingrich has taken the idea of space prizes to the ultimate conclusion by proposing a $20 billion prize for the first group to land a person on Mars and return him safely to Earth, reports the Cato Institute. Later, he added the idea of a lunar base prize for $5 billion. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] Under the Gingrich vision for space, NASA would be relegated to technology development and little else. Prizes and tax incentives would drive space exploration and, eventually, the settlement of humans from Earth on other worlds. Gingrich has also publicly come out in favor of President Obama's plan to foster commercial space through government subsidies.

43


GOP <3 CP Conservatives like the plan- it rolls back spending. Space Politics, 2-9-2011 [“Conservatives for commercial space”, 2-9, http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/conservatives-for-commercial-space) NHA group of conservatives calling on the government to turn over more of its activities to the private sector would seem hardly surprising or newsworthy. However, in the often distorted world of space policy of the last year, such a declaration is perceived at the very least as necessary. “It’s been a funny year in space policy,” said Rand Simberg, representing the Competitive Enterprise Institute, at a hastily-organized Capitol Hill event announcing the formation of the Competitive Space Task Force (I received the media advisory about it a full 22 minutes before it was scheduled to start.) The task force is a coalition of conservative groups and individuals seeking “a free and competitive market for spaceflight and space services enabling the country to recapture the imagination and innovation of America’s space program and foster a new entrepreneurial spirit in the emerging Space Economy,” according to its press release. “We’re here to try and change the conversation,” Simberg, chairman of the task force, said. The task force wants to drum up support among conservatives for the administration’s proposals to develop commercial crew transportation systems and terminate the Constellation program, despite the fact that they come from a White House whose policies are generally anathema to most conservatives. In particular, they argue that commercialization efforts can help NASA get more done with limited funding and allow it to focus on cutting edge work beyond the scope of the private sector. “That’s what this effort is all about, is to add to our ability to do space, not subtract from our ability to do space,” said Bob Walker, former chairman of the House Science Committee. He added that over the last two decades NASA has become “unaffordable” because it can’t handle alone everything the country wants to do in space. The task force doesn’t have any specific initiatives or legislation in mind to push for its objectives (which include, according to the release, opening up the ISS to “the fullest possible economic utilization by the U.S. private sector” and greater used of fixed-price contracts by NASA). Andrew Langer of the Institute for Liberty said that’s due in part to uncertainties about the federal budget, with the administration due to release its FY12 proposal next week. “We’re really anxious to see what the president’s budget priorities are going to be when it comes to NASA,” he said. “We’re going to be working with folks up here on the Hill to make sure that policies are going to be enacted to support commercial programs.” While this group may suppot the administration’s commercial space policies, just don’t expect them to start sporting “Obama 2012″ buttons any time soon. “I just don’t think that the president cares that much one way or the other about commercial space,” Simberg said in response to a question. “But I’m glad for that. I think if he did we’d have worse problems.”

Conservatives like privatization- it reigns in fiscal spending. Nelson ’11 – Writer for the Daily Caller (2/8/11, Steven, The Daily Caller, Fiscal conservatives call for increased privatization of spacehttp://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-of-space/) NHSpace spending has long been the multibillion-dollar government project that is rarely discussed and even more infrequently brought up as a primary focus by fiscal conservatives. Tuesday morning the Competitive Space Task Force, a self-described group of fiscal conservatives and free-market leaders, hosted a press conference to encourage increased privatization of the space industry. Members of the task force issued several recommendations to Congress, including finding an American replacement to the Space Shuttle (so to minimize the costly expenditures on use of Russian spacecraft) and encouraging more private investment in the development of manned spacecraft. Former Republican Rep. Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania said, “If we really want to ‘win the future’, we cannot abandon our commitment to space exploration and human spaceflight . The fastest path to space is not through Moscow, but through the American entrepreneur.” Task Force chairman Rand Simberg, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said, “By opening space up to the American people and their enterprises, NASA can ignite an economic, technological, and innovation renaissance, and the United States will regain its rightful place as the world leader in space.” Also speaking at the press conference was Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste .

TEA PARTY <3 CP The Tea Party loves the plan- it eliminates wasteful inefficiencies in NASA and supports the private sector.

44

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/fiscal-conservatives-call-for-increased-privatization-of-space/

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/conservatives-for-commercial-space

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/09/conservatives-for-commercial-space


Tea Party, 2011 [“Press Release: TEA Party Launches Space Platform”, 6-23, http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-launches-space-platform/) NH

(Washington DC) — TEA Party in Space (TPIS), a non-partisan organization, today publicly released the TEA Party Space Platform (link to platform). “This is our response to the vacuum of leadership in Washington, D.C., for America’s national space enterprise,” said Andrew Gasser, President of TPIS. “Whether it’s timidity from the White House or Congress’ earmark-laden ‘compromises’, our space dreams will be stuck on this planet unless someone articulates a vision based on economic and technical reality, so that’s what we’ve done.” This platform, and its specific planks, are grounded in sound science, technology, and the TEA Party’s core values. The TEA Party in Space Platform promotes fiscal responsibility, limited government, and stimulation of the free market. “The status quo of crony capitalism, earmarking billions of NASA’s budget to a few companies, districts and states, has got to stop. We already tried this approach with Constellation and all we have to show for it are stacks of power point presentations, some pretty CGI videos, and a half-billion-dollar practice rocket” said Gasser. “It’s time to return NASA to its roots as an R&D agency instead of serving as a slush fund for a few influential members of congress. This platform provides that plan.” This platform gives the Administration, Congress, and federal candidates guidance on economic policy, technology development, and legislative priorities to help advance America’s leadership in space . Specific issues covered in the platform include reform of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), tax incentives for space investment, and changes to how NASA does business. One example of government waste the platform corrects is the U.S. Senate’s mandating of a wasteful Space Launch System in last year’s NASA Authorization Act. Instead of embracing new technology and opportunities to leverage private investment, Congress chose to waste over $11 billion in a few districts and states to keep a few contractors in business for a few more years. Instead, the TPIS platform calls for moving NASA away from the ‘Apollo crash program model’ of designing, building, and operating its own unique and ultra-expensive launch vehicles. “The same NASA centers and contractors who failed to complete the Constellation program are getting a bailout courtesy of the taxpayers. Billions of dollars continue to be directed to Ares contractors, just under a different name, SLS” Everett Wilkinson stated. “The TEA Party’s core values are just what America’s space endeavors need right now in this volatile economy. NASA is being forced to fund programs that are behind schedule and ridiculously over budget. It’s time to ask: ‘how much is enough?’ Both NASA, and the American taxpayer deserve a better plan and that’s what our platform provides.” Recently, a report mandated by Congress found that a private upstart company designed and built two new launch systems, and several generations of a new rocket engine all for roughly $390 million taxpayer dollars. The report estimated it would have cost NASA anywhere from $1.7 billion to $4 billion dollars to develop those same capabilities using standard NASA acquisition approaches. Constellation cost the US Taxpayer over $11 billion dollars and produced only test articles, no flown hardware. When it was cancelled last year, its schedule had already slipped by more than a year for each year it had existed. And even NASA’s vaunted robotic science projects are plagued by cost overruns and delays. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is suffering the same fate of Constellation. Originally priced at just under $1 billion dollars with a launch date of 2010, JWST is currently $5 billion dollars over budget and eight years behind schedule. TPIS is making this platform available to everyone to read and review on their website, and then discuss with their friends and neighbors. TPIS hopes that people from all political backgrounds will read this. “Our goal is make space policy a national issue. We want to educate Americans and our elected officials that we have a space economy and not just a space program, and every district and state can participate. We need to move away from calling a state a ‘space state’ or a district a ‘space district’” stated Isaac Mooers, TPIS Director of Operations. “We have a platform that will grow all of America’s potential in space. We ask each elected official, and those running for office, to review the TEA Party Space Platform and pledge to vote in line with this platform.”

COERCION = NB NASA is coercive and wasteful with taxpayer dollars. Ludlowm, freelance writer with a MA and BA from the University of Toronto, 2008 (Lawrence M., Strike The Root, NASA, the Aeropspace Welfare Queen, http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow2.html)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is a textbook example of how to quash free scientific inquiry. It also is a lesson in transforming potentially useful citizens into high-speed drains on the U.S. Treasury. Instead of perpetuating its gold-plated make-work projects and revering its state-sponsored 'official heroes,' we should recognize NASA for what it is 'a resuscitated Roman coliseum that stages useless spectacles that hypnotize taxpayers while bleeding them dry. Or is it just a vampire with a bad case of hemophilia? Take your pick. Populus optat panem et circenses. The Race to Bankruptcy Free-market businesses are ethically sound because they are funded voluntarily by

45

http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-launches-space-platform/

http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-launches-space-platform/


willing customers. In contrast, NASA is a coercive shakedown. First, there is no market for what it sells . There are no eager buyers spending their own money on NASA's goods and services. Instead, NASA's annual budget of $16.8 billion (2007) is taken from taxpayers'under threat of violence'by the government's hold-up men, the IRS. It is a case of naked exploitation that benefits politically connected companies and a government bureaucracy that exists for its own sake. It should not surprise us that NASA is the Cold War stepchild of the military-industrial complex'an offshoot of the arms race between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. Rather than the achievement of a free people, it is the collectivist response of the U.S. government to the Soviet launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957. At the same time, it is an example of chest-thumping worthy of juvenile delinquents playing a game of 'mine is better than yours.' Even President Kennedy's decision to go to the Moon was a public-relations stunt that mortgaged America 's future in exchange for the emotional 'high' of winning a technological spending spree. In essence, the 'space race' is part of a nationalistic race toward bankruptcy. While the United States won the first lap of this race by reaching the Moon in 1969, the Soviet Union ultimately won the contest by bankrupting and dissolving itself in 1991. With its tiresome catalog of budget-busting boondoggles, the United States will finish a poor second. Nonetheless, with NASA's help, it will eventually bankrupt itself with the same certainty as a red giant in outer space. The only question is when. The Original Sub-Prime Mortgage Scam In contrast to desirable market-based companies, NASA's value to taxpayers compares poorly with even the casualties of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. After all, who wouldn't be happy to pay money to shut down NASA'if only to prevent another round of orbiting money-pits from being launched into oblivion? For example, the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs were obscenely wasteful. Nearly all of the spacecraft used in these missions (everything but the manned capsules) ended up as waste at the end of each trip'either burned up in the atmosphere, sunk beneath the waves, or floating as debris in space. Even the capsules were not re-used; instead, they are displayed at the tax-subsidized Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum , where they continue to drain taxpayers' wallets to this very day. Heck, too bad Nero and Caligula never had a chance to take lessons from astronauts John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin about how to ride on the backs of taxpayers. Even the obscenely wasteful food orgies and burning tenements of Rome might pale in comparison to the extra-stratospheric waste of nasty old NASA. How long would even the most soft-headed parent continue to provide a son or daughter with a string of new automobiles if they were driven off a cliff each time they were taken out for a spin? In contrast to NASA, privately financed aerospace engineer Burt Rutan developed energy efficient aircraft and spacecraft. In June 2004, his SpaceShipOne was the first privately built craft to reach space. In so doing, he reused more than 80% of the vehicle hardware and did not cost taxpayers a dime. Along with his investors, he plans to commercialize space flight. Even more important, he eliminated coercion and the entitlement mentality of government programs from the concept of space exploration. Lost in Space NASA's space missions burn tax dollars faster than the IRS can pluck them from our wallets. But as quickly as our dollars disappear, so do the spacecraft. Remember the Mars Observer? It was lost in 1993. And this was followed by the Mars Climate Orbiter (1999) and the Mars Polar Lander (1999). And what about the two Deep Space probes also lost in 1999 or the infrared telescope lost in that year as well? Just as sobering, the Hubble telescope yields its own brand of budget madness. After an original total cost estimate of $400 million, the construction bill alone came to $2.5 billion. The cumulative cost ranges between $4.5 and $6 billion. Similarly, Time reported (Feb. 2003) that the space station was originally slated to cost $14 billion, but the tally reached $35 billion back in 2003 . The space station, however, was just an appetizer for the Space Shuttle program. For that program, NASA initially hoodwinked us with a low-ball figure of $5.5 million per launch. Later NASA admitted a cost of $450 million per launch and $1.7 billion for the cost of the shuttle Endeavor alone (only one of the vehicles used). The true cost is much higher. Roger Pielke, Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, claims that the total cost of the program will reach $173 billion by 2010'a cost per flight of $1.3 billion. Since it will cost taxpayers more than 200 times the original estimate, the Space Shuttle program makes Operation Iraqi Freedom look like a significant'if bloodier'bargain. After all, unless you factor in the carnage and future blowback terrorism caused by the war in Iraq , it has cost only 45 times as much as the original 'cakewalk' estimates of The Great Decider. But Roger Pielke's estimate for the Space Shuttle program may be too pessimistic. He assumed that NASA will continue to find human guinea pigs reckless enough to board the shuttles. After all, they fall apart so regularly that newspaper headline writers are forever seeking new ways to say 'Astronauts to Repair Shuttle.' With each foray, there is the implicit threat that debris from a disintegrating craft will rain down upon Earth-bound civilians. When will the Department of Homeland Security be asked to protect us from NASA? 'And All I Got Was This Dumb T-Shirt In contrast to privately funded scientific efforts such as Edison's (electricity), Bayer's (aspirin), or Gutenberg's (printing), has NASA discovered anything that justifies the fabulous expense? According to Wesley Ward, chief space geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (Feb. 2003): 'The international space station, like the shuttle, is an instrument in search of a purpose . . . . (We) are doing a variety of piddley experiments with little larger application to anything.' NASA Chief Administrator Michael Griffin concurs. He recently suggested that the decision to develop the space shuttle and International Space Station was a mistake: 'It is now commonly accepted that (it) was not the right path. We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can.' He also added that 'the shuttle is fundamentally flawed.' James Van Allen, considered the father of nuclear physics in space (remember the Van Allen radiation belts?), has been a long-term critic of the space shuttle. To the Associated Press, he described the program as '. . . too expensive and dangerous . . . It's a vastly difficult effort with almost no significant purpose.' Taxpayers also should consider this: how were they possibly being served when astronauts on the space shuttle Discovery carried a souvenir T-shirt into space as a favor for the school children of Golden Hill Elementary School in Haverhill, Massachusetts (Feb. 2007)? At a cost of $1.3 billion per shuttle launch, surely that T-shirt was the most overpriced in the history of informal apparel. The political payload on shuttle trips has included Luke Skywalker's light saber, American flags, a teddy bear, and other cheesy memorabilia'sometimes counted by the dozen! Instead of being ashamed, NASA is proud of this imperial waste. It even hosts a web page called Items Taken into Space. Just think: average citizens will go to jail for refusing to subsidize this nonsense. As examples of in-your-face waste and insensitivity, these outrages are worthy of Marie Antoinette before she lost her head in the French Revolution. Why are no heads rolling at NASA? Of course, NASA's supporters claim that we enjoy countless benefits from the space program. Some are mythical, and most have no application beyond outer space; All of them, however, fail to answer the following questions: (1) at what cost? and (2) instead of what? In other words, they do not tell us what Americans could have achieved with this great pile of cash if NASA had not incinerated it without leaving as much as a toasted marshmallow. The problem is that NASA has failed to meet the only test that matters among people who do not use loaded guns to enforce a decision: the market test. Only when buyers and sellers engage in peaceful, voluntary exchange can products and services be judged as successes or failures. Only then are they subject to a true cost-benefit analysis instead of the arbitrary judgment of self-interested bureaucrats, which is the trademark of all socialist ventures such as NASA's. Self-Justification, Anyone? Oddly enough, NASA tacitly admits there is no good reason to flush away billions of dollars on its projects. For example, a visit to NASA's Moon, Mars & Beyond web page includes the link Why the Moon? There we are told why NASA will be allowed to squander untold billions on an Apollo re-run'a return to the Moon by 2020. Let's take a closer

COERCION = NB look: 'Over the past year, NASA posed this question not just to 100 people, but to more than 1,000 from around the world . . . . Starting with just their responses, NASA worked with 13 of the world's space agencies to develop a Global Exploration Strategy. The strategy explains why the global community believes we should explore space, how space exploration can benefit life on Earth, and how the Moon can play a critical role in our exploration of the solar system.' Those of us who sell products to real customers know why we do it before we ask for cold, hard cash. NASA does not work this way. First they take our money; then they ask why . Just as scary, however, are NASA's answers: ' Extend human settlement to the Moon. Most of us believe that terrestrial real estate is expensive enough without having to commute nearly 240,000 miles to find a quiet half acre next to a total vacuum in a bad neighborhood with toasty daytime temperatures of 212 'F and frosty evenings of -233 'F. ' Obtain scientific knowledge. Privately funded scientists do this better without as much waste. Imagine how cost-effective and user-friendly personal computers would be if NASA had manufactured them. ' Prepare for future space trips. This circular argument is simply embarrassing. It's like saying, 'Let's have dinner at the most expensive restaurant in town so that we can learn how to dine at another expensive restaurant in the future!' Self-justification anyone? ' Develop shared, peaceful global partnerships. Doesn't worldwide free trade accomplish this goal even better and at no cost to the taxpayer? Besides, forcing taxpayers to cough up the cash isn't very peaceful or partner-like. ' Provide economic expansion. NASA actually reduces economic expansion by bleeding funds from peaceful, profitable projects that people engage in willingly and diverting them to politically determined pork-barrel spending sprees at the point of a gun.

46


Prizes CP

47


1NC Counterplan Text: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should establish a Centennial Challenge for <plan>

Centennial Challenges promote low-cost tech development and space missions. They’re modeled on past successes and can solve the affCain— publisher of Universe Today, VP and Partner of Communicate.com; a website development agency, co-founder and inventor of CompuTrace, 04, (April 29, 2004, Fraser, Universe Today, “NASA’s X-Prize Looking for Ideas” http://www.universetoday.com/9536/nasas-x-prize-looking-for-ideas/, MA)

The NASA program that offers cash prizes for the development of new capabilities to help meet the agency’s exploration and program goals is conducting its first workshop June 15-16 at the Hilton Hotel, Washington. Centennial Challenges is a novel program of challenges, competitions, and prizes. NASA plans to tap the innovative talents of the nation to make revolutionary, breakthrough advances to support Vision for Space Exploration and other NASA priorities. “Centennial Challenges is a small but potentially high-leverage investment by NASA to help address some of our most difficult hurdles in research and exploration ,” said NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe. “I look forward to stimulating competitions and very innovative wins that advance the nation’s Vision for Space Exploration,” he added. The goal of Centennial Challenges is to stimulate innovation in fundamental technologies, robotic capabilities, and very low-cost space missions by establishing prize purses for specific achievements in technical areas of interest to NASA. By making awards based on achievements, not proposals, NASA hopes to bring innovative solutions from academia, industry, and the public to bear on solar system exploration and other technical challenges. “From 18th century seafaring, early 20th century aviation to today’s private sector space flight, prizes have played a key role in spurring new achievements in science, technology, engineering, and exploration,” said Craig Steidle, NASA’s Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems. “The Centennial Challenges Program is modeled on the successful history of past prize contests, and I am proud the Office of Exploration Systems is shepherding this path-finding program for NASA,” he added. “This workshop will help NASA develop challenges that are of high value to the agency,” said Brant Sponberg, Centennial Challenges Program Manager. “The workshop also will provide input into what challenges NASA announces this year and next year and what the rules for those competitions will be. It should be an invigorating way to lay the groundwork for this exciting program,” he said.

48

http://www.universetoday.com/9536/nasas-x-prize-looking-for-ideas/


Solves – NASA Prizes like the Centennial Challenge promote private sector development and economic growth – past models proveSSI, Space Settlement Institute, a think tank dedicated to finding ways to make space settlement 2004 [In a letter to Congress, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/rec52.htm, MA]

The Commission recommends that Congress increase the potential for commercial opportunities related to the national space exploration vision by providing incentives for entrepreneurial investment in space, by creating significant monetary prizes for the accomplishment of space missions and/or technology developments, and by assuring appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure. Although many companies exist and more are emerging in the field of space, an increase in both the number and variety of such businesses would vastly increase the processes and materials available for space exploration. The private sector will continue to push the envelope to succeed competitively in the space field. It is the stated policy of the act creating and enabling NASA that it encourage and nuture private sector space. The Commission heard testimony on both positive incentives and potential bottlenecks encountered by the private sector as they attempt to exploit these commercial opportunities. A space industry capable of contributing to economic growth, producing new products throught the creation of new knowledge and leading the world in invention and innovation, will be a national treasure. Such an industry will rely upon proven players with aerospace capabilities, but increasingly should encourage entrepreneurial activity. Prizes. The Commission heard testimony from a variety of sources commenting on the value of prizes for the achievement of technology breakthroughs. Examples of the success of such an approach include the Orteig Prize, collected by Charles Lindbergh for his solo flight to Europe, and the current X-Prize for human suborbital flight. It is estimated that over $400 million has been invested in developing technology by the X-Prize competitors that will vie for a $10 million prize - a 40 to 1 payoff for technology. The Commission strongly supports the Centennial Challenge program recently established by NASA. This program provides up to $50 million in any given fiscal year for the payment of cash prizes for achievement of space or aeronautical technologies, with no single prize in excess of $10 million without the approval of the NASA Administrator. The focus of cash prizes should be on maturing the enabling technologies associated with the vision. NASA should expand its Centennial prize program to encourage entrepreneurs and risk-takers to undertake major space missions. Give the complexity and challenges of the new vision, the Commission suggests that a more substantial prize might be appropriate to accelerate the development of enabling technologies. As an example of a particularly challenging prize concept, $100 million to $1 billion could be offered to the first organization to place humans on the Moon and sustain them for a fixed period before they return to Earth. The Commission suggests that more substantial prize programs be considered and, if found appropriate, NASA should work with the Congress to develop how the funding for such a prize would be provided.

CP solves – Companies want NASA prizesBritt — Senior Science Writer 05 (March 23, 2005, Robert Roy, “NASA Details Cash Prizes for Space Privatization” http://www.space.com/899-nasa-details-cash-prizes-space-privatization.html, MA)

49

http://www.space.com/899-nasa-details-cash-prizes-space-privatization.html


http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/rec52.htm

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/rec52.htm


Space industry leaders, including many who are putting their money into programs they know won't pay off for years to come, don't have a solid handle on how commercialization beyond Earth-orbit will pay off. But much of the smart money is on space tourism rather than scientific exploration, satellite deployment or the White House's Mars plans. "There are many more passengers than there are satellites," said Jeffrey Greason, president and CEO of XCOR Aerospace, which is developing a craft it plans to use for transporting paying customers just beyond the fringe of Earth's atmosphere. Other companies are eager to win the NASA prizes to add precious revenue to their start-up companies. Charles Miller, president and CEO of Constellation Services International, plans to compete. His company plans to ultimately deliver cargo into space that will be needed by other missions. "We're not sexy," Miller said. "But the people who made money in the Gold Rush were the guys who sold Levis to the miners. We're the guys who deliver the Levis." Welcome change The new use of NASA funds is a welcome shift to many space experts. Looking back NASA's early successes in human spaceflight and looking forward to more of it, legendary physicist and space colonization visionary Freeman Dyson suggested the space agency has crucial roles to play in the future. "Keep the space science going," the 81-year-old Dyson advised the agency. And "build the infrastructure" and set policies that encourage private enterprise to enter space.

NASA prizes empirically solve – more funding is key to effectiveness in spaceSargeant, 2008 (Benjamin, “The Use of Innovation Prizes by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An Analysis of Future Possibilities for Fostering Research and Development,” Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, 7-28, http://www.tcc.virginia.edu/WashIntern/docs/papers/Sargeant_08_r.pdf)

Government use of innovation prizes is a viable, effective means of complementing traditional research and development activities. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) currently holds innovation prize contests called Centennial Challenges with the goal of finding innovative research solutions to pressing technical challenges. Judged by the recent success of the Ansari X-Prize and the DARPA Grand Challenge, innovation prize competitions excite the public and media about space and attract talented teams that normally would not participate in government-funded research. Although NASA’s initial innovation prize efforts are heading in the right direction, they limit their potential by focusing too much on teams that respond primarily for the notoriety of winning a NASA challenge. The current Centennial Challenges program offers medium-scale prizes with the goal of increasing public interest in space and attracting independent teams of skilled entrepreneurs to solve tough technical objectives. NASA should also study the benefits of expanding its program to include larger-scale prizes for major space exploration milestones, such as a robotic mission to the Moon, and should consider establishing private foundations, which would generate matching contributions from private sources and promote public interest in and excitement about the prize. The agency should consider how to take advantage of the large international community of individual problem solvers who respond to cash prizes posted on the Internet by organizations such as InnoCentive. Taking these steps to expand and improve its innovation prize program will strengthen NASA’s research capability, increase public awareness about space, and provide the agency with valuable new support to carry out its missions in space.

Solves – NASA Government issues prizes solve NASA inefficiency and space exploration initiatives. Tumlinson, 2005 [Rick, co-founder of the Space Frontier Foundation, “Private Industry Can Help NASA Open the Space Frontier”, Feb. 14, 2005, http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/16279-Privatization-of-Space) NH

NASA must never again tie itself to facilities or buildings, or to trying to manage transportation and other infrastructure. NASA will need not an exit strategy from the Moon, but rather an entrance strategy to open the Moon, and the basics of this new way of doing business must be locked in this year. The actual construction and operation of the lunar community must be carried out by the private sector. Meanwhile, NASA can develop its own pure Mars analog base a few kilometers around the other side of the Moon, using what it learned from the first buildup and focusing purely on studying the elements needed for Mars. The Mars analog can be placed outside of the view of Earth, where the astronauts there can be isolated, delays can be simulated, and yet supported and backed up by staff at the main community-whose facilities and habitat rentals can feed into the economy. This will require revolutionary thinking on the part of the U.S. government, especially in its relationship to the private sector. These changes will have to extend far beyond technologies and operational considerations, to the legal, regulatory and contractual aspects of space. The United States must develop a package of tax and investment incentives to open the spigots of Wall Street and other capital sources. The normal methods of cost-plus contracting -- awarding contracts to develop capabilities rather than paying for provision of services -- must be done away with. But it will not be sufficient for the government to simply pay for the delivery of goods, people and services if we want to kick start the space economy. The nation must go further. We must create a package of incentives that together make it irresistible for private investors to want to get involved on the frontier. One example is what I call a Catalytic Contingency Contract. Let's say NASA needs a laboratory for long-term research. The government, rather than building or contracting a module as was done on the international space station program, would instead offer to lease a certain number of square feet for an extended period from the first private developer who demonstrates the capability to provide it. This lease would be part of an overall package designed to make it so sweet a deal that the firm and its investors would be able to see past any potential risks. Such a contract would include: The right of the developer to rent out any volume beyond the government's to anyone it pleases at whatever rate it chooses; the right to own all intellectual property it may develop while building the facility; the right to sell any advertising based on its contract and involvement in the project; and freedom from any taxes it might be assessed on profits realized from any activities generated by the project. The privately funded new space firms will push into space if the money continues to flow and it doesn't turn out to be a billionaire's fad. NASA eventually might be able to spend billions and get something or someone to the Moon in a couple of decades -- if politicians and presidents continue their support. For now NASA has billions of dollars and a mandate to push outward into space, but it needs a partner that thinks outside the box. The new space firms live outside of the box and if given the right support they could accelerate the push into space and make it permanent. Last year both the government and the people said they want to open space. Working separately the public and private sectors might be able to stagger and stumble into the future, or they might trip and fall back into the past. Together, using the strengths of each, we can create an amazing future and take the first strong steps now. I don't know about you, but I don't want to wait any longer.

NASA can use prizes to solve, encouraging private sector developmentKalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley 06 (Thomas, the Brookings Institute, “Prizes for Technological Innovation” http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf p 7-28) JP

Among all federal agencies, NASA has shown the greatest interest in using prizes to achieve its goals. With the passage of its 2005 authorization legislation, NASA can sponsor a prize of any dollar amount. It can also accept matching funds from the private sector. In 2004, NASA launched the Centennial Challenges program with prizes in several different categories. These prizes range from Flagship challenges that are large enough to encourage major private sector space missions, to Quest challenges designed to get more young people interested in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. NASA is also

50

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf%20p%207-28

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/16279-Privatization-of-Space



teaming with private organizations to sponsor nine competitions for technologies such as flexible astronaut gloves, space elevators, a simulated lunar lander, personal air vehicles, and others. Finally, NASA is exploring another six competitions with prizes totaling fourteen million dollars. The goals include a lunar all-terrain vehicle, low-cost space suits, a lunar night power source, and a micro reentry vehicle capable of returning viable samples from orbital research platforms. For example, to win the Micro Reentry Vehicle Challenge prize of two million dollars, the reentry vehicle must return six of twelve eggs safely to Earth from a starting point of two hundred kilometers above the surface of the Earth (NASA 2006). NASA has been very imaginative in its use of prizes. I propose that it now also move forward with some more ambitious competitions that are under discussion, such as an Earth-Moon solar sailcraft race and a lunar lander-rover. Under this plan, NASA would devote at least one hundred million dollars of its $16.8 billion annual budget to prizes. Assuming that the initial experience is positive and that there are other appropriate ideas for competitions, NASA would eventually allocate 2–3 percent of its annual budget to prizes. Below are two examples of the more ambitious competitions that NASA should pursue: (1) Earth-Moon solar sailcraft race: A fifteen million dollar prize pool would be offered to the first two teams whose solar sailcraft circle the moon and return to a specified Earth orbit. Solar sailcraft would be useful as monitoring stations that would provide advanced warning of solar storms, and for future outer planet or even interstellar missions. (2) Lunar lander-rover: A twenty million dollar prize would be established for the first team to land a robotic rover on the lunar surface that is able to travel ten kilometers and send a video signal back to Earth. It has been more than thirty years since the United States conducted exploration on the surface of the moon, and such a competition could provide NASA with innovative, low-cost technology options for renewed exploration. An analysis conducted for NASA (X PRIZE Foundation 2003) notes that, in 2000, a start-up firm called BlastOff was created to place a robotic explorer on the Moon, but, having been created after the dot-com implosion of the late 1990s, it was not able to raise sufficient funds. A prize would make it easier for entrepreneurial firms to raise the money for this mission by making sponsorships and media sales more attractive to private funders. The two most compelling advantages of prizes, for NASA, are the potential to increase public interest in science and technology, and the possibility of attracting a broader range of researchers and entrepreneurs to work on innovation related to NASA’s work. For example, Team Snowstar, a team of undergraduates from the University of British Columbia who performed the bulk of their work in a dorm room, was voted “most likely to succeed” on the basis of their performance in the 2005 space elevator competition. Given that students have been responsible for Netscape, Yahoo!, Google, Napster, and many other successful technology companies, it is vital to engage students and other nontraditional performers. In the short run, of course, NASA is unlikely to rely on prizes for innovations that are on their critical path for important missions, and will need more experience with prizes before making them a mainstream tool.

Solves – NASA Incentivized private companies complete missions for a lower cost and in a shorter timeframeNSS, 11 (May 13, 2011, National Space Society, “New International Law Textbook Discusses Lunar Real Estate,” http://blog.nss.org/?m=201105 7/25/11) AP

The average price of a full-up NASA Dragon cargo mission to the International Space Station is $133 million including inflation, or roughly $115m in today’s dollars, and we have a firm, fixed price contract with NASA for 12 missions. This price includes the costs of the Falcon 9 launch, the Dragon spacecraft, all operations, maintenance and overhead, and all of the work required to integrate with the Space Station. If there are cost overruns, SpaceX will cover the difference. (This concept may be foreign to some traditional government space contractors that seem to believe that cost overruns should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.) The total company expenditures since being founded in 2002 through the 2010 fiscal year were less than $800 million, which includes all the development costs for the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon. Included in this $800 million are the costs of building launch sites at Vandenberg, Cape Canaveral and Kwajalein, as well as the corporate manufacturing facility that can support up to 12 Falcon 9 and Dragon missions per year. This total also includes the cost of five flights of Falcon 1, two flights of Falcon 9, and one up and back flight of Dragon. The Falcon 9 launch vehicle was developed from a blank sheet to first launch in four and half years for just over $300 million. The Falcon 9 is an EELV class vehicle that generates roughly one million pounds of thrust (four times the maximum thrust of a Boeing 747) and carries more payload to orbit than a Delta IV Medium. The Dragon spacecraft was developed from a blank sheet to the first demonstration flight in just over four years for about $300 million. Last year, SpaceX became the first private company, in partnership with NASA, to successfully orbit and recover a spacecraft. The spacecraft and the Falcon 9 rocket that carried it were designed, manufactured and launched by American workers for an American company. The Falcon 9/Dragon system, with the addition of a launch escape system, seats and upgraded life support, can carry seven astronauts to orbit, more than double the capacity of the Russian Soyuz, but at less than a third of the price per seat. SpaceX has been profitable every year since 2007, despite dramatic employee growth and major infrastructure and operations investments. We have over 40 flights on manifest representing over $3 billion in revenues. These are the objective facts, confirmed by external auditors. Moreover, SpaceX intends to make far more dramatic reductions in price in the long term when full launch vehicle reusability is achieved. We will not be satisfied with our progress until we have achieved this long sought goal of the space industry. For the first time in more than three decades, America last year began taking back international market-share in commercial satellite launch. This remarkable turn-around was sparked by a small investment NASA made in SpaceX in 2006 as part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. A unique public-private partnership, COTS has proven that under the right conditions, a properly incentivized contractor — even an all-American one — can develop extremely complex systems on rapid timelines and a fixed-price basis, significantly beating historical industry-standard costs.

Prizes are more effective than government research – Ansari X provesKalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December SL

Policies discussed in this report include increasing federal support for basic research by 10 percent a year for the next seven years; increasing the tax incentive for private sector research and development and making it permanent; recruiting ten thousand of America’s brightest students to become math and science teachers every year; increasing the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships for science and engineering; investing five hundred million dollars a year to upgrade the research infrastructure at American universities and national labs; creating a new agency to support energy research; reforming the U.S. patent system; and allowing each federal program manager to allocate 8 percent of his budget to high-risk, high-return research projects.7 Inducement prizes avoid this problem by paying only if someone meets the predefined objective. By comparison, if the government provides a grant or a contract, it pays even if the recipient is unsuccessful, on the condition that the scope of work was completed. For example, NASA gave Lockheed Martin more than nine hundred million dollars to build the X-33, a technology-demonstrator for NASA’s next-generation reusable space-launched vehicles (David 2001). When the program was cancelled because of problems associated with the X-33’s composite fuel tanks, no one expected Lockheed to give the money back. 4. Under some circumstances, prizes can stimulate philanthropic and private sector investment that is greater than the cash value of the prize.

51

http://blog.nss.org/?m=201105


For example, the ten million dollar Ansari X PRIZE was financed by a one million dollar insurance policy, and the X PRIZE Foundation reports that the prize stimulated at least one hundred million dollars in private sector investment (Diamandis 2006).

Prizes increase cooperation between agencies and the private sector.Kalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December

The NASA Authorization Act of 2005 gives NASA the ability to “competitively award cash prizes to stimulate innovation in basic and applied research, technology development, and prototype demonstration” (U.S. Congress 2005b, §314, p. 11). Congress has passed legislation to allow the National Science Foundation, DOE, DARPA, and the military services to conduct prize competitions. Congress could continue to pass prize legislation on an agency-by-agency basis, or amend procurement laws to make it clear that all agencies have the authority to support prizes and AMCs. A wholesale legislative change would obviously be more efficient, but the agency-by-agency approach would give different congressional committees an opportunity to learn about and approve the use of prizes. Ideally, prize legislation would encourage and enable agencies to partner with nonprofit and private sector entities, which could take the lead on public relations, eligibility requirements, the recruiting of additional commercial and philanthropic sponsors, implementation, judge selection, and other logistical issues .

Solves – NASA Prizes solve major private space development – past prizes like Ansari X prove effectivenessDinerman space writer regarding military and civilian space activities since 1983 ’06 - (2/20/06, Taylor, “NASA’s space technology Olympics, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/559/1, MA)

They are not international and there are not going to be any gold, silver, or bronze medals, but the Centennial Challenge s program is competition at the highest level. Ever since Peter Diamandis revived the idea of prizes back in 1996 with the X Prize (later renamed the Ansari X Prize) the concept has been slowly taking hold in the US and elsewhere, first with the DARPA Grand Challenge for robotic vehicles and Robert Bigelow’s America’s Space Prize, and now with these NASA prizes. Before the US Congress passed the NASA authorization bill in December of last year, the space agency was only allowed to organize competitions with awards of $250,000 or less. Now NASA is theoretically able to give prizes of as much as $50 million dollars. These large prizes are referred to as the “Flagship Challenges” and are intended to encourage “major private space missions”. Other elements of the project include Keystone Challenges of between $500,000 and $5 million for technology development, smaller Alliance Challenges with collaborating institutions, and Quest Challenges, which are intended to stimulate student efforts in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). At the February 8, 2006 meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, they passed out sets of cards praising some historic prizewinners such as Louis Bleriot, Charles Lindbergh, and Burt Rutan, and explaining some of the ongoing Alliance Challenges. Of particular interest are the two challenges intended to begin development of lunar in situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology. The Moon Regolith Oxygen (MoonROx) Challenge is being organized under the auspices of the Florida Space Research Institute (FSRI) , a state-chartered nonprofit organization. The $250,000 prize will go to the team that can extract five kilograms of breathable oxygen from (an FSRI supplied) lunar regolith simulant within an eight-hour period. There will be limitations on the amount of power supplied, the use of consumables, and the total mass of the MoonROx equipment. This challenge, which runs through the beginning of June 2008, represents a small step towards realistic lunar ISRU. There have been other efforts in the past, notably by Bob Zubrin and the Mars Society, but this, along with the similar Regolith Excavation Challenge being supervised by the California Space Education and Workforce Initiative, is obviously intended to produce a cadre of men and women with hands-on experience in ISRU design and development. Some of the other challenges in this category are for beam power, tether technology, and a planetary unmanned aerial vehicle, as well as the previously announced astronaut glove challenge. The inclusion of a prize for a personal air vehicle seems intended to show that NASA is not entirely forgetting its mission to support the aviation industry, but so far it’s the only non-space prize. Frankly, it’s more of an afterthought and just brings up once again the question: should the space agency have any role in promoting America’s civil aviation industry? The Quest Challenges will be the most difficult to properly structure. They will have to be exciting and competitive, while at the same time be difficult enough to be truly educational. To make them into a sort of an easy-to-play game will defeat the purpose. They should be hard enough so that student will have to work hard to win, but not so difficult as to discourage kids from learning to appreciate the nature of the space endeavor. The Flagship and Keystone prizes are the ones NASA needed special authorization to initiate. Some of the proposals include demonstrating the technology needed for an on-orbit fuel depot for LOX and liquid hydrogen, a micro-reentry vehicle that will carry an egg back from orbit, a solar sail, a human lunar all-terrain vehicle, a low-cost pressure suit, a lunar night power source, a lunar lander analog, and a nontoxic rocket engine. From this list it is obvious that NASA badly want this process to substitute for the usual systems development sequence. This slow and detailed requirements formulation process, followed by contractor bids and design, development, and manufacturing will not produce the technology needed to make the lunar outpost missions, now planned for sometime around 2020 or 2021, a reality. The goal of these missions is to build a base on the Moon, probably near the south pole, and is to today’s NASA what “flags and footprints” were to the agency during the Apollo days. NASA believes that with prizes, competitors will invariably spend more than the prize itself is worth. After all, Paul Allen spent more than $20 million to win the $10 million Ansari X Prize, and there are lots of other historical and contemporary examples. There are a couple of dangers to this promising approach. The first is that after the prize is awarded the winners will find that they will not have clear and unambiguous ownership of the intellectual property and/or patents involved. The second is that there will be so many of these competitions that “prize fatigue” may set in. On the whole the agency is to be applauded for grasping this opportunity to reach beyond its usual stable of contractors. Sometime between now and the moment when George W. Bush and Mike Griffin leave office the first of these prizes should—hopefully—be awarded. That will be the time to judge whether this concept is just a passing fad or if it should be a normal part of the way NASA and the rest of the government do business.

52



Solves – General Prizes solve best – all other methods fail at solving large-scale problems and stimulating revolutionary science.Charlton, Editor-in-Chief -- Medical Hypothesis & Andras, , Member of the Editorial Advisory Board -- Medical Hypotheses, Newcastle University, 2008 [Bruce G. and Peter Andras “Stimulating revolutionary science with mega-cash prizes,” Medical Hypotheses - Volume 70, Issue 4, 2008, http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/03/mega-cash-prizes-for-revolutionary.html, MA]

In conclusion, we suggest that revolutionary science could be encouraged by increasing the monetary incentives for successful revolutionary science – especially the incentives as they operate on the best young scientists as they choose their career paths in their mid twenties to early thirties. This could be accomplished by a change in behaviour of the large grant awarding bodies – a shift from funding research programs with grants and towards rewarding successful revolutionary science with prizes. For example, a research foundation working in a specific scientific field might at present spend 100 million dollars per year – and might spread this money among ten 10 million dollar program grants . In all likelihood, this money will at present be spent on normal science, and will produce modest incremental progress. We are suggesting that such a research foundation might instead spend 100 million dollars in a single prize, awarded to a relatively young scientist or a few scientists in recognition of a significant success in revolutionary science. In the short term, this kind of prize would serve merely as a retrospective recognition of research which had been done anyway – but after a few years the mega-cash prize would begin to work as a prospective incentive; shaping the behaviour of young scientists towards more ambitious scientific problems which (if successfully solved) would be eligible for such prizes. There is a previous literature on the use of prizes to stimulate scientific research [11], [12], [13] and [14] – however, these types of prizes have either implicitly or explicitly been orientated towards problem solving as quickly as possible and therefore using the simplest possible methods – since this ‘research and development’ approach is most likely to win the prize. What is novel about our argument here, is that we are suggesting that prizes may also be set-up such that they encourage revolutionary science. Furthermore, we advocate the use of scientometrics as a screening mechanism before peer review as a method of preventing corruption and ensuring that the research being rewarded has had an objectively verifiable consequence of revolutionizing (i.e. changing the direction of, or opening-up new fields for) the practice of science. In other words, mega-cash prizes might encourage some of the very best young scientists to make more long-term and high risk career choices. The real winner of this would be society as a whole; since normal science can successfully be done by second rate scientists – but if the first rate scientists do not make the decision to tackle the toughest scientific problems, then solutions to these tough problems may be delayed, or they may never be solved.

Prize programs have great historical success and increase public interest in spaceSargeant, 2008 (Benjamin, “The Use of Innovation Prizes by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An Analysis of Future Possibilities for Fostering Research and Development,” Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, 7-28, http://www.tcc.virginia.edu/WashIntern/docs/papers/Sargeant_08_r.pdf)

After several deadly shipwrecks, the British Parliament offered £20,000 in 1714 to anyone who could devise a “practical and useful” means of precisely pinpointing longitude at sea (Knowledge Ecology International, 2008, 35). The prize was awarded years later in 1773 when John Harrison invented a highly accurate, sea-worthy chronometer that enabled longitude calculations (NASA Contests and Prizes, 2004, Hearing Charter, 6; Schroeder, 2004, 6; Che, 2003, 646). A noteworthy example in the field of aviation is the privately-funded 1919 Orteig prize for $25,000 to the first aviator to cross the Atlantic Ocean between New York City and Paris without stopping (Schroeder, 2004, 7-8; The Hamilton Project, 2006, 1). Charles Lindbergh, a previously unknown airmail pilot from St. Louis, made his historic, record-setting flight eight years later to claim the prize and help usher in a new era of air travel (NASA Contests and Prizes, 2004, Hearing Charter, 6; Schroeder, 2004, 6-7; Johnson 2008). The X-Prize Foundation established the Ansari X-Prize in 1996 to encourage and foster innovation and development in the commercial spaceflight business (Masci, 2003, 486). Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites won the $10 million prize in 2004 when their spacecraft SpaceShipOne flew into space twice in two weeks (Ansari X PRIZE, 2008; Innovation/Entrepreneurship, 2005; Croft, 2004, 42). The prize attracted extensive media attention and substantially increased public awareness of and interest in commercial space flight (Sweetman, 2004, 45; Knowledge Ecology International, 2008, p. 13.

Prizes work—it’s empirically proven that they foster effortKalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley 06 (Thomas, the Brookings Institute, “Prizes for Technological Innovation” http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf p 7-28) JPThis paper proposes greater use of inducement prizes, an old but currently underutilized public policy tool that stimulates technological innovation. Inducement prizes encourage efforts by contestants to accomplish a particular goal (NAE 1999). They are different from recognition prizes, such as the Nobel Prize, that reward researchers for past achievement. Inducement prizes are similar in spirit to advance market commitments (AMCs): Under AMCs, governments commit to buy a given quantity of a product or service that meets prespecified performance goals. Inducement prizes and AMCs are policy tools that help to blend the best of public purpose and the creativity, energy, and passion of private sector entrepreneurial teams. Inducement prizes are not new. In 1714, in response to several shipwrecks that had resulted from inaccurate longitude measurements, the British Parliament established a prize for the precise determination of a ship’s longitude (Sobel 1996). In 1795, a prize was offered for a method of food preservation that would be usable by Napoleon’s military forces (Scotchmer 2004). In the early twentieth century, many advances in aviation such as faster speed, greater distance, and new

53


http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/03/mega-cash-prizes-for-revolutionary.html

http://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2008/03/mega-cash-prizes-for-revolutionary.html


technologies were driven by prizes sponsored by aeronautical societies, newspapers, mail companies, and interested individuals (Schroeder 2004). After frequent use between the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries, prize competitions largely fell out of use as a means to stimulate technological innovation. They have enjoyed a renaissance in recent years, however, attributable in part to the success of the Ansari X PRIZE. In 1996, Peter Diamandis established the X PRIZE to “promote the development and flight of spaceships able to provide low-cost commercial transport of humans into space.” The X PRIZE Foundation offered a ten million dollar prize to the team that, without government support, developed a craft that could successfully send the pilot and two passengers (or equivalent weight) to a suborbital altitude of at least one hundred kilometers, and then repeat the flight within two weeks. Aerospace designer Burt Ruttan and his team at Scaled Composites, backed by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, won the prize on October 4, 2004, with the SpaceShipOne (Miller 2005). The X PRIZE Foundation is now sponsoring the X PRIZE Cup, which will eventually award prizes for spaceships that are faster, cheaper, safer, and can travel higher. In addition, the X PRIZE Foundation recently announced a ten million dollar prize for inexpensive and rapid sequencing of the human genome, and is exploring new prizes in areas such as high-mileage autos, education, space, the environment, nanotechnology, medicine, and social entrepreneurship.

Solves – General Large-scale prize programs generate public interest and private investment – X-Prize provesSargeant, 2008 (Benjamin, “The Use of Innovation Prizes by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An Analysis of Future Possibilities for Fostering Research and Development,” Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, 7-28, http://www.tcc.virginia.edu/WashIntern/docs/papers/Sargeant_08_r.pdf)

Sponsoring several large-scale competitions for a human orbital flight or the return of a sample from a near-Earth asteroid would generate substantial public interest and press coverage. A large-scale project could inspire a significant number of entries from private investors because of the prestige associated with the prize and the potential for a profitable product should the prize foster the development of a new market, as in the case of the X-Prize . Participation by self-financed, independent teams and individuals, however, would probably be diminished because of the larger up-front costs and increased difficulty. The chance that a large-scale prize will fail to produce a viable solution is also greater than for a smaller, less technically challenging prize. The record to date indicates a lack of congressional support for large-scale prizes, especially since the money appropriated would have to be left unspent for several years (Kintisch, 2005, 2153-2154; Coppinger, 2006). As is the case with a smaller prize, NASA pays by funding the prize and gains by acquiring the technology it needs. The winning team or individual earns a monetary award and, depending on the terms of the prize, may surrender some of the intellectual property rights associated with the invention. The press coverage and public interest are major benefits to both parties.

Prizes are more effective than government grants—they solve a variety of issuesKalil, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley 06 (Thomas, the Brookings Institute, “Prizes for Technological Innovation” http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf p 7-28) JP

1. Prizes are especially suitable when the goal can be defined in concrete terms but the means of achieving that goal are too speculative to be reasonable for a traditional research program or procurement. For example, the Methuselah Foundation is sponsoring the Mprize for the research team that develops the longest living mouse. The long-term goal of the foundation is the “defeat of age-related disease and the extension of the healthy human lifespan.” Researchers from MIT, Harvard, and UCLA have already announced their intention to compete for the prize, which currently stands at $3.9 million (Mprize 2006), although many researchers in gerontology are skeptical about the potential of radical life extension. 2. Government research grants typically require that the funding agency both determines who will receive funds to achieve a certain goal and chooses among different approaches for achieving that goal. In contrast, public inducement prizes allow the government to establish a goal without being prescriptive as to how that goal should be met or who is in the best position to meet it. The value of leaving open the best way to meet the goal is vividly illustrated by the outcome of the Orteig Prize, a twenty-five thousand dollar prize sponsored in 1919 by hotel owner Raymond Orteig for the first nonstop flight between New York and Paris (Schroeder 2004). The conventional wisdom of the day was that such a transatlantic flight would require a heavy, multiengine plane with a large crew. Charles Lindbergh successfully completed the first transatlantic flight in 1927 solo in a single-engine plane. 3. Prizes can also address some of the problems that are associated with government support for applied R&D. As Kremer and Glennerster (2004, p. 49) note, “researchers funded on the basis of an outsider’s assessment of potential rather than actual product delivery have incentives to exaggerate the prospects that their approach will succeed, and once they are funded, may even have incentives to divert resources away from the search for the desired product.” Inducement prizes avoid this problem by paying only if someone meets the predefined objective. By comparison, if the government provides a grant or a contract, it pays even if the recipient is unsuccessful, on the condition that the scope of work was completed. For example, NASA gave Lockheed Martin more than nine hundred million dollars to build the X-33, a technology- demonstrator for NASA’s next-generation reusable space-launched vehicles (David 2001). When the program was cancelled because of problems associated with the X-33’s composite fuel tanks, no one expected Lockheed to give the money back. 4. Under some circumstances, prizes can stimulate philanthropic and private sector investment that is greater than the cash value of the prize. For example, the ten million dollar Ansari X PRIZE was financed by a one million dollar insurance policy, and the X PRIZE Foundation reports that the prize stimulated at least one hundred million dollars in private sector investment (Diamandis 2006). This leverage can come from a number of different sources. Companies may be willing to cosponsor a competition or invest heavily to win it because of the publicity and the potential enhancement of their brand or reputation. Private, corporate dollars that are currently being devoted to sponsorship of America’s Cup or other sports events might shift to support prizes or teams. Wealthy individuals are willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to sponsor competitions or bankroll individual teams simply because they wish to be associated with the potentially historical nature of the prize. Most areas of science and technology are unlikely to attract media, corporate, or philanthropic interest, however. 5. Prizes can attract teams with fresh ideas who would never do business with the federal government because of procurement regulations (e.g., accounting and reporting requirements) that they may find burdensome. This effect is important because, as Baumol (2004, p. 5) notes, “the independent innovator and the independent entrepreneur have tended to account for most of the true, fundamentally novel innovations. In the list of the important innovative breakthroughs of the twentieth century, a substantial number, if not the majority, turn out to be derived from these sources rather than from the laboratories of giant business enterprises.” As examples of small-firm innovations, Baumol cites the airplane, air conditioning, the electronic spreadsheet, FM radio, the high-resolution CAT scanner, and the microprocessor.

54



Solves – General Prizes lead to solutions – empirically and historically provenKalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December SL

Inducement prizes and AMCs are policy tools that help to blend the best of public purpose and the creativity, energy, and passion of private sector entrepreneurial teams. Inducement prizes are not new. In 1714, in response to several shipwrecks that had resulted from inaccurate longitude measurements, the British Parliament established a prize for the precise determination of a ship’s longitude (Sobel 1996). In 1795, a prize was offered for a method of food preservation that would be usable by Napoleon’s military forces (Scotchmer 2004). In the early twentieth century, many advances in aviation such as faster speed, greater distance, and new technologies were driven by prizes sponsored by aeronautical societies, newspapers, mail companies, and interested individuals (Schroeder 2004). After frequent use between the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries, prize competitions largely fell out of use as a means to stimulate technological innovation. They have enjoyed a renaissance in recent years, however, attributable in part to the success of the Ansari X PRIZE. In 1996, Peter Diamandis established the X PRIZE to “promote the development and flight of spaceships able to provide low-cost commercial transport of humans into space.” The X PRIZE Foundation offered a ten million dollar prize to the team that, without government support, developed a craft that could successfully send the pilot and two passengers (or equivalent weight) to a suborbital altitude of at least one hundred kilometers, and then repeat the flight within two weeks. Aerospace designer Burt Ruttan and his team at Scaled Composites, backed by Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen, won the prize on October 4, 2004, with the SpaceShipOne (Miller 2005). The X PRIZE Foundation is now sponsoring the X PRIZE Cup, which will eventually award prizes for spaceships that are faster, cheaper, safer, and can travel higher.

Prizes are more effective than government funding – Ansari X provesKalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December SL

Policies discussed in this report include increasing federal support for basic research by 10 percent a year for the next seven years; increasing the tax incentive for private sector research and development and making it permanent; recruiting ten thousand of America’s brightest students to become math and science teachers every year; increasing the number of undergraduate and graduate fellowships for science and engineering; investing five hundred million dollars a year to upgrade the research infrastructure at American universities and national labs; creating a new agency to support energy research; reforming the U.S. patent system; and allowing each federal program manager to allocate 8 percent of his budget to high-risk, high-return research projects.7 Inducement prizes avoid this problem by paying only if someone meets the predefined objective. By comparison, if the government provides a grant or a contract, it pays even if the recipient is unsuccessful, on the condition that the scope of work was completed. For example, NASA gave Lockheed Martin more than nine hundred million dollars to build the X-33, a technology-demonstrator for NASA’s next-generation reusable space-launched vehicles (David 2001). When the program was cancelled because of problems associated with the X-33’s composite fuel tanks, no one expected Lockheed to give the money back. 4. Under some circumstances, prizes can stimulate philanthropic and private sector investment that is greater than the cash value of the prize. For example, the ten million dollar Ansari X PRIZE was financed by a one million dollar insurance policy, and the X PRIZE Foundation reports that the prize stimulated at least one hundred million dollars in private sector investment (Diamandis 2006).

55


Solves – General Prizes spur development for energy missions – companies involved seek any kind of monetary sponsorship and the public recognition provided.Steitz – NASA News Writer ‘11 (3/10/11, David, NASA, “NASA Seeks Partners To Manage Night Rover, Nano-Sat Launcher Challenges, http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/mar/11-072_Centennial_Challenges.html, MA

NASA is seeking partner organizations to manage the agency's upcoming Night Rover and Nano-Satellite Launcher Centennial Challenges. NASA's Centennial Challenges are prize competitions for technological achievements by independent teams who work without government funding. The challenges are extended to individuals, groups and companies working outside the traditional aerospace industry. Unlike most contracts or grants, awards only are made after solutions are successfully demonstrated . "We're looking for allied organizations that recognize the tremendous value these citizen-inventor, entrepreneur, small business and university teams bring to the innovation engine in America," said Bobby Braun, NASA chief technologist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Centennial Challenges is another catalyst for the United States to out-innovate the rest of the world in a new, technology-based economy." Teams competing in the Night Rover Challenge will need to demonstrate a solar-powered exploration vehicle that can operate in darkness, using its own stored energy. NASA is offering a prize purse of $1.5 million for the rover challenge. The Nano-Satellite Launcher Challenge is to place a small satellite into Earth orbit, twice in one week, with a prize purse of $2 million. The objective of the Night Rover Challenge is to stimulate innovations in energy storage technologies of value in extreme space environments, such as the surface of the moon, or for electric vehicles and renewable energy systems on Earth . Currently, the solar-powered Mars rovers "go to sleep" during the Martian night. NASA hopes the Night Rover Challenge will generate new ideas that will allow planetary rovers the ability to take on a night shift, and possibly create new energy storage technologies for applications on our home planet. The Nano-Satellite Launcher Challenge goal is to stimulate innovations in low-cost launch technology for frequent access to Earth orbit while encouraging creation of commercial nano-satellite delivery services. Decreasing the cost of reliably sending small payloads to Earth orbit in a timely manner could create entire new markets for U.S. businesses and provide opportunities for students and researchers to harness the environment of space for technology development and innovative problem solving. Centennial Challenge events typically include media and public audiences, and may be televised on NASA Television or streamed online. NASA's agency website also covers the competitions. The competitions provide high-visibility opportunities to partner organizations and sponsors for public outreach. NASA will choose U.S. non-profit organizations to manage the contests from proposals in response to agency opportunity notices available at: http://go.usa.gov/40P and http://go.usa.gov/49N The organizations that will manage the challenges also will seek sponsors and teams, and conduct publicity and administration of the actual contests. Once selected, the allied organizations will collaborate with NASA to announce challenge rules and details on how teams may enter. Allied organizations generally seek sponsorships of all monetary sizes and in-kind contributions while providing public recognition to competition sponsors. Arrangements for competition sponsorships will be negotiated directly between the allied organizations and the sponsors and may include competition naming rights for significant contributors. NASA also is seeking private and corporate sponsors for the Strong Tether, Power Beaming, Green Flight and Sample Return Robot Challenges. NASA is looking for companies, organizations or individuals interested in sponsoring the non-profit allied organizations that manage the prize competitions.

Solves – Mars Missions Prizes solve Mars missions – DARPA robotics competition proves.Foust editor and publisher of The Space Review 03- ( 2/24/03, Jeff, “ A “Grand Challenge” for NASA”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/4/1, MA)

56


http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/mar/11-072_Centennial_Challenges.html


Why is a branch of the Pentagon sponsoring a road race? The purpose of the “DARPA Grand Challenge”, according to the official web site for the race, is to “leverage American ingenuity to accelerate the development of autonomous vehicle technologies that can be applied to military requirements.” In other words, DARPA wants to see if anyone outside the usual academic, industrial, and military research communities has a better way to develop vehicles that can drive themselves. Apparently, there are quite a few people who think they can. The Times reported that over 200 potential participants were expected to attend a one-day meeting in L.A. last Saturday where DARPA would provide additional details about the competition. Some of the potential participants are planning to spend several hundred thousand dollars of their own money to build vehicles in time for the race, scheduled for March 13, 2004. Even though organizing the competition consider the concept audacious, given the short distances and slow speeds achieved by autonomous vehicles to date. “This will be a spectacular event if someone builds an autonomous vehicle that can travel 300 yards, no less 300 miles,” Jose Negron, the US Air Force colonel who is running the competition, told the Times. “That will be inspiring.” (If no one wins the 2004 race, DARPA will try again in following years; its Congressional authority to award the prize runs through fiscal year 2007.) So what does any of this have to do with NASA? DARPA has shown the ability to take an unconventional approach to solving a technological problem. NASA, in its quest to take on increasingly challenging robotic missions, from advanced rovers on Mars to flybys of distant planets, is dependent on advanced technology in a wide range of fields to make those missions possible. However, NASA’s budgets for technological development are limited, as are the number of research labs who work on such projects. NASA, like DARPA, could benefit from a new approach to technological innovation. NASA can take a small first step by participating in the DARPA Grand Challenge. The agency could help promote the race, provide a share of the grand prize money, or offer other awards to entice entrants, all in exchange for access to the winning technology. While DARPA is interested in autonomous vehicle navigation for military purposes, the same technology could enhance future Mars rover missions, enabling them to visit sites more quickly and efficiently than with human intervention via delayed communications. Such technology will become absolutely essential for robotic missions beyond Mars, where the light travel-time delay will make remote operation virtually impossible. Beyond the DARPA Grand Challenge, NASA could consider staging similar competitions of its own. The nature of the competition would change, of course, depending on the technology NASA is encouraging people to develop . An engine or thermal protection system technology might require a rocket race, for example, while NASA might sponsor a submersible race for technologies to be used on future missions to explore Europa’s subsurface oceans. The key will be to choose technologies that are both important and challenging while still incremental enough to permit participation by small companies and even hobbyists in addition to large companies and universities.

Solves – Lunar Missions Prizes spur lunar tech development at low cost – empirically provenAlexander public affairs officer for education at NASA, technology editor 09 (11/2/09, Sonja, “NASA and X Prize Announce Winners of Lunar Lander Challenge” http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_09-258-Lunar_Lander.html, MA)

NASA will award $1.65 million in prize money Thursday to a pair of innovative aerospace companies that successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again. NASA’s Centennial Challenges program will give a $1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems of Mojave, Calif., and a $500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace of Rockwall, Tex., for their Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge flights. The competition was managed by the X PRIZE Foundation. The Northrop Grumman Corporation is a commercial sponsor that provided operating funds for the contest to the X PRIZE Foundation. An awards ceremony for the winning teams will be held at noon on Nov. 5 in room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington. Journalists should contact Sonja Alexander at 202-358-1761 for more information about the

57

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/nov/HQ_09-258-Lunar_Lander.html


ceremony. The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge involves building and flying a rocket-powered vehicle that simulates the flight of a vehicle on the moon. The lander must take off vertically then travel horizontally, flying a mission profile designed to demonstrate both power and control before landing accurately at another spot. The same vehicle then must take off again, travel horizontally back to its original takeoff point and land successfully, all within a two-hour-and-15-minute time period. The challenge requires exacting control and navigation, as well as precise control of engine thrust, all done automatically. The rocket's engine must be started twice in a short time with no ground servicing other than refueling. This represents the technical challenges involved in operating a reusable vehicle that could land on the moon. The prize purse is divided into first and second prizes for Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 requires a flight duration of at least 90 seconds on each flight and Level 2 requires a duration of at least 180 seconds. One of the landings for a Level 2 attempt must be made on a simulated lunar terrain with rocks and craters. Masten Space Systems met the Level 2 requirements by achieving accurate landings and captured the first place prize during flights of their "Xoie" (pronounced "Zoey") vehicle Oct. 30 at the Mojave Air and Space Port. Masten also claimed a $150,000 prize as part of the Level 1 competition. Armadillo Aerospace was the first team to qualify for the Level 2 prize with successful flights of its Scorpius rocket Sept. 12 in Caddo Mills, Tex. Armadillo placed second in the Level 2 competition, earning a $500,000 prize. The average landing accuracy determined which teams would receive first and second place prizes. The Masten team achieved an average accuracy of 7.5 inches while Armadillo Aerospace's average accuracy was 34 inches. The events of the past two months have brought the four-year Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge to a conclusion. All $2 million in prize money has been awarded. "The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge has had its intended impact, with impressive performances by multiple teams representing a new generation of aerospace entrepreneurs" said Andrew Petro, NASA's Centennial Challenge program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These companies have demonstrated reusable vehicles with rapid turnaround and a surprising degree of precision in flight, and they have done all this at a much lower cost than many thought possible." Four teams had been in pursuit of the 2009 Lunar Lander Challenge prizes during the competition that opened in July. The BonNova team dropped out of the competition last week. Unreasonable Rocket, a father-and-son team from Solana Beach, Calif., conducted flight attempts during the final days of the competition but did not complete any qualifying flights. In the Level 1 competition, Armadillo Aerospace previously claimed the first place prize of $350,000 in 2008. Masten Space Systems qualified for the remaining second place prize on Oct. 7, 2009, with an average landing accuracy of 6.3 inches. Because there were no other qualifying Level 1 flights this year, the Masten team will receive the second place prize of $150,000. NASA's Centennial Challenges program's goals are to drive progress in aerospace technology that is of value to NASA's missions; encourage participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development; and find innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation. The Northop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is one of six Centennial Challenges managed by NASA's Innovative Partnership Program. The competition was managed for NASA at no cost to the taxpayer by the X PRIZE Foundation under a Space Act Agreement. NASA provided all of the prize funds.

Prizes solve lunar missions and tech development necessary for coloniesEveringham California Space Authority Staff Liaison Aerospace Engineer Research Analyst 07 (November 8, 2007, Matthew, “$1.75 MILLION IN NASA PRIZES ANNOUNCED” http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/conference2007/press-releases/pr071108-Challenges.pdf, MA)

The Honorable Shana Dale, Deputy Administrator of NASA, started the day off at the Transforming Space 2007 Conference this morning by extolling NASA’s fifty years of accomplishments. In so doing, she set the stage for the announcement of the $1.75 million in NASA prize money for the 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge and the 2008 MoonROx Challenge (Moon Regolith Oxygen), both designed to learn how to sustain prolonged lunar operations . “Californians have played a major role in space exploration since the very beginning,” stated Shana Dale. “Since its founding, California has always been a place of promise, a place where people are inspired to reach high, to work hard and to dream big. Today, California is still the place of dreamers and discoverers.” California hosts a large number of industrial, entrepreneurial, academic and government entities that contribute to space exploration and discovery. The Golden State hosts a robust space enterprise, including three NASA Centers – Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In the spirit of Shana Dale’s California Dreamin’ comments, Ken Davidian, Program Director for NASA’s Centennial Challenges Program announced, “It is a pleasure to be working with the California Space Education and Workforce Institute and the California Space Authority in helping make NASA’s exploration goals a reality. The 2008 Regolith Excavation Challenge and the 'new and improved' MoonROx Challenge will push innovation in technologies that will be required if we are to accomplish the nation's civil and commercial space goals.” The Regolith Excavation Challenge offers a $750,000 purse to contestants who meet the requirements in new technologies designed to excavate lunar regolith. Excavation is a necessary first step towards lunar resource utilization, and the unique physical properties of lunar regolith make excavation a difficult technical challenge. Advances in lunar regolith excavation have the potential to contribute significantly to the nation's space exploration operations. The MoonROx Challenge will tempt contestants with a $1 million purse. This challenge is designed to promote the development of technologies and processes to extract breathable oxygen from lunar regolith on the scale of a pilot plant. Efficient production of breathable oxygen from in-situ lunar resources has the potential to contribute significantly to NASA’s exploration mission and space operations. “NASA’s contributions to science have had transformational affects on our everyday lives,” noted Andrea Seastrand, Executive Director of the California Space Authority (CSA). “In planning for the next fifty years of space exploration, we are excited to be working with NASA to offer $1.75 million in prize money for programs that will find ways to prolong life on the lunar surface. We are proud to be involved in an effort that could potentially transform man’s relationship with the moon far into the future.” “We are reaching towards the future of space exploration, and we are calling on students and innovators to bring success a few steps closer,” continued Dr. Jack Gregg, Executive Director of the California Space Education and Workforce Institute, the organization responsible for putting on the challenges. “We are proud to support the NASA Centennial Challenges program and its development of space exploration."

Solves – Lunar Missions Companies are motivated to get to the moon – recent competitions prove.The Launch Pad 10 —X Prize Foundation (12/20/10, X Prize Foundation, XPrize.org, “Three Google Lunar X PRIZE Competitors Awarded NASA Contracts” http://thelaunchpad.xprize.org/2010/12/three-google-lunar-x-prize-competitors.html, MA)

Today, NASA announced that it purchased data related to innovative lunar missions from three private firms. All three contracts , valued at $500,000 each, were awarded to teams competing for the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE: Astrobotic Technology Inc of Pittsburgh, PA; Moon Express Inc. of Mountain View, CA; and the Rocket City Space Pioneers (through their team member Dynetics Inc.) of Hunstville, AL. The contracts mark the first of several through NASA’s $30 million Innovative Lunar Demonstrations Data project, managed by the Johnson Space Center near Houston, TX. In exchange for these contracts, Astrobotic, Moon Express and the Rocket City Space Pioneers will demonstrate how they will address one of the top ten technical risk areas associated with a low-cost lunar surface mission. In the coming months, each group will take an unproven but critical technical component to a high degree of technical readiness, such that it could be considered ready for spaceflight. NASA and the teams both are likely to benefit greatly from this process. Additionally, these contracts demonstrate a critical difference between the first era of lunar exploration and ‘Moon 2.0,’ a new era that is just beginning. “NASA is going to be a strong a leader in Moon 2.0, just as it was in the famous Moon race of the 1960s. But this time, NASA will show leadership by partnering with international partners and especially with commercial enterprises, in addition to conducting its own missions,” noted William Pomerantz, the Senior Director of Space Prizes at the X PRIZE Foundation. “Today’s contract announcements show how Google Lunar X PRIZE teams and space agencies are already

58

http://thelaunchpad.xprize.org/2010/12/three-google-lunar-x-prize-competitors.html

http://www.californiaspaceauthority.org/conference2007/press-releases/pr071108-Challenges.pdf


forging mutually beneficial ties that will allow us to visit the Moon sooner and stay for longer.”Three other Google Lunar X PRIZE teams have previously been selected for participation in the Innovative Lunar Demonstrations Data (ILDD) program: FREDNET of Huntsville, AL; Next Giant Leap (through their team member The Charles Strake Draper Laboratory of Cambridge, MA), and Omega Envoy (through their team member Earthrise Space Inc.) of Orlando, FL. All six ILDD participants are able to submit proposals to claim the various contracts still available through the program, with each individual team able to earn as much as $10 million. NASA’s selection is no indication that the agency views the chosen teams as the most likely to win the Google Lunar X PRIZE; instead, NASA chose the teams by evaluating each proposal and deciding which would provide the most valuable data at the minimum level of (business) risk. Still, these awards will have a positive impact on those teams and on the competition as a whole. Moon 2.0, thrives on being international and participatory, and derives much of its strength from the cooperation and collaboration between civil space agencies and private firms ; Google Lunar X PRIZE teams that can identify and sign government customers are demonstrating their ability to be vital components of this new era. Accordingly, teams have been encouraged to seek government customers willing to purchase lunar services and data at commercially reasonable rates. “The X PRIZE Foundation and our partners at Google have been confident for quite some time that the business case for commercial lunar exploration closes,” explained Pomerantz. “Today, we’ve seen further proof of that—and we’ve been given hope that investors will see significant return much sooner than previously expected.”

Privatizing lunar missions is the best way to solve – NASA fails at cost-effectiveness and staying on scheduleHudgins, 2004 [Edward, The Atlas Society, “Return to the Moon? Not With This NASA,” 1-24, http://www.atlassociety.org/return-moon-not-nasa, MA]

One reaction to President Bush's plan for a permanent Moon base and a trip to Mars is "Great! It's about time NASA stops going around in circles in low Earth orbit and returns to real science and exploration." Unfortunately, there's not a snowball's chance in the sun that the same agency that currently is constructing a down-sized version of its originally planned space station, decades behind schedule, at ten times its original budget, a few hundred miles up in orbit, will be able to build a station several hundred thousand miles away on the Moon. If Americans are again to walk on the Moon and make their way to Mars, NASA will actually need to be downsized and the private sector allowed to lead the way to the next frontier. The lunar landings of over three decades ago were among the greatest human achievements. Ayn Rand wrote that Apollo 11 "was like a dramatist's emphasis on the dimension of reason's power." We were inspired at the sight of humans at our best, traveling to another world. In announcing NASA's new mission, President Bush echoed such sentiments, speaking of the American values of "daring, discipline, ingenuity," and "the spirit of discovery." But after the triumphs of Apollo, NASA failed to make space more accessible to mankind. There was supposed to be one shuttle flight a week; instead, there have been about four per year. The space station was projected to cost $8 billion, house a crew of twelve, and be in orbit by the mid-1990s. Instead, its price tag will be $100 billion for only a crew of three. Worse, neither the station nor the shuttle does much important science. Governments simply cannot commercialize goods and services. Only private entrepreneurs can improve their quality, bring down prices, and make them accessible to all individuals—including cars, airline trips, computers, the Internet, you name it. Thus to avoid the errors of the shuttle and space station, NASA's mission must be very narrowly focused on exploring the Moon and planets and perhaps conducting some very basic research, which also might serve a defense function. This will mean leaving low Earth orbit to the private sector. The shuttle should be given away to private owners; the United Space Alliance, the joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin that refurbishes the shuttle between flights, would be an obvious candidate. Let a private owner fly it for paying customers—including NASA if necessary—if it is still worth flying. NASA also should give up the money-draining space station, and sooner rather than later. The station might be turned over to the international partners or, better still, to the mostly private Russian rocket company, Energia, and the western investors who were in the process of commercializing and privatizing the Mir space station before the Russian government brought it down for political reasons. If need be, NASA can be a rent-paying station tenant. NASA centers that drive up its budget but do not directly contribute to its mission should be shut down. If the government wants to continue satellite studies of the climate and resources or other such functions, they could be turned over to other agencies like the EPA and Interior Department. NASA and the rest of the government should contract for launch services with private companies, which would handle transportation to and from low Earth orbit. Contracting with private pilots with private planes is what the Post Office did in the 1920s and 30s, which helped the emerging civil aviation sector. Further, to facilitate a strong private space sector, the government needs to further deregulate launches, export licensing, and remove other barriers to entrepreneurs. Creating enterprise zones in orbit would help make up for government errors of the past. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) proposes a "Zero Gravity, Zero Tax" plan that would remove an unnecessary burden from out-of-this-world risk-takers. NASA will also need to do business in new, innovative ways. For example, if a certain technology is needed for a Moon mission, it could offer a cash prize for any party that can deliver it. The federal government used such an approach for aircraft before World War II , modeled after private prizes that helped promote civil aviation. Even if the federal government foots the bill for a Moon base, it should not own it. Rather, NASA should partner with consortia of universities, private foundations, and even businesses that are interested in advancing human knowledge and commercial activities. NASA could simply be a tenant on the base. Or consider a radical approach proposed by former Rep. Bob Walker (R-PA). The federal government wouldn't need to spend any taxpayer dollars if it gave the first business to construct a permanent lunar base with its own money a 25-year exemption from all federal taxes on all of its operations, not just those on the Moon. Think of all the economic activity that would be generated if a Microsoft or General Electric decided to build a base! And the tax revenue from that activity probably would offset the government's revenue losses from such an exemption. If we're true to our nature, we will explore and settle planets. But only individuals with vision, acting in a free market, will make us a truly space-faring civilization.

Solves – Lunar Missions Prizes solve lunar exploration for a fraction of the cost of the plan – private sector is interested, but costs are an issueFoust - editor and publisher of The Space Review ’04 (3/1/04, Jeff, “Commercializing the new space initiative”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/109/1, MA)

One immediate aspect of the plan that seems well-suited to commercialization is a series of robotic precursor missions to the Moon. When Bush announced the initiative in January, he said that NASA would resume robotic missions to the Moon no later than 2008; NASA later said they planned a lunar orbiter mission for 2008 and a lander mission the following year. Those missions, NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe told the House Science Committee in February, would cost a total of about $500-600 million. There is plenty of commercial interest in—if not always money for—lunar exploration. Sending spacecraft to the Moon is hardly at the cutting edge of space exploration. NASA has been mounting robotic lunar missions for over four decades (although it has done very little since the end of the Apollo program.) The former Soviet Union sent its own share of missions to Moon, while Europe’s first lunar mission, SMART-1, is gradually making its way there using ion propulsion. China and India are also planning their own initial lunar missions for later this decade. At the same time, a number of companies have been considering their own private missions to orbit and land on the Moon. LunaCorp has been working on designs for a number of lunar orbiter and lander missions for well over a decade. TransOrbital is developing a small lunar orbiter, TrailBlazer, that is scheduled for launch later this year. Several years ago SpaceDev studied flying a commercial lunar orbiter, and more recently carried out a study for a robotic observatory deployed on the surface of the Moon. In short, there is plenty of commercial interest in—if not always money for—lunar exploration. The precursor lunar missions would appear to be a perfect way to experiment with ways to commercialize the new space initiative. NASA could, for example, sign data purchase agreements with companies operating commercial missions for specific data sets, be they high-resolution imagery of specific regions of the surface or spectroscopic data on regions of the lunar poles thought to harbor deposits of water ice. NASA could create a prize for the first mission to return a certain amount of samples from a specified region of the Moon. The agency could also simply work out an agreement to fly a NASA-supplied instrument on a planned commercial mission for a set fee. Any combination of these efforts could return the same data as missions built and operated by NASA for potentially a fraction of the cost.

59


http://www.atlassociety.org/return-moon-not-nasa


Solves – Lunar Missions/Mining Prizes solve lunar development and mining – companies want to return to the moon, it’s seen as a goldmine for profit.Chang, science reporter for The New York Times and MS in physics from Illinois U, ’11 (Kenneth Chang, “Race to the Moon Heats Up for Private Firms”, 7/21/11, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/science/space/22moon.html?_r=2&sq=space%20prizes&st=cse?pagewanted=print&scp=1&pagewanted=all, MA)

Now that the last space shuttle has landed back on Earth , a new generation of space entrepreneurs would like to whip up excitement about the prospect of returning to the Moon . Spurred by a $30 million purse put up by Google, 29 teams have signed up for a competition to become the first private venture to land on the Moon. Most of them are unlikely to overcome the financial and technical challenges to meet the contest deadline of December 2015, but several teams think they have a good shot to win — and to take an early lead in a race to take commercial advantage of our celestial neighbor . At the very least, a flotilla of unmanned spacecraft could be headed Moonward within the next few years, with goals that range from lofty to goofy. One Silicon Valley venture, Moon Express, is positioning itself as a future FedEx for Moon deliveries: if you have something to send there, the company would like to take it. Moon Express was having a party on Thursday night to show off the flight capabilities of its lunar lander, based on technology it licensed from NASA, and “to begin the next era of the private commercial race to the Moon,” as the invitation put it. “In the near future, the Moon Express lunar lander will be mining the Moon for precious resources that we need here on Earth,” the invitation promised. “Years from now, we will all remember we were there.” Naveen Jain, an Internet billionaire and a founder of Moon Express, says the company will spend $70 million to $100 million to try to win the Google Lunar X Prize, but could recoup its investment on its first flight. He envisions selling exclusive broadcast rights for video from the Moon, as well as sponsorships, à la Nascar, for companies to put their logos on the lander. Or, perhaps, a tie-in to reality television. “Wouldn’t it be nice if you could have a ‘Moon Idol,’ just like ‘American Idol?’ “ suggested Mr. Jain, who previously founded Infospace and Intelius. “You take the top 10 contestants and play their voices on the Moon, record it and see who sounds the best.” (There is no air on the Moon to transmit sound waves, but “you could play it through the dust and see what it sounds like when you play it right on the surface,” Mr. Jain said. His point was that with cheap lunar transportation, there was no predicting what might catch people’s fancies.) Another competitor, Astrobotic Technology, intends to sell berths on its lunar lander to space agencies and scientific institutions, which would pay $820,000 a pound to send up their experiments. The company, a spinoff from Carnegie Mellon University, is building a large craft — much bigger than Moon Express’s — capable of carrying 240 pounds of payload (read: $200 million of cargo) and hopes to be ready to launch in December 2013. “We can make a lot of money even if we do not win the prize,” said David Gump, president of Astrobotic, which is based in Pittsburgh. “We will be making substantial profit on the first flight. Basically, we’ll break even by selling a third of the payload.” The X Prize competitors might all be beaten by landers and rovers that China, Russia and India plan to send up over the next couple of years. But those fall more in the mold of traditional, government-built science probes. While NASA had wanted to send astronauts back to the Moon, its program was canceled last year, a victim of budget cuts and shifting priorities. But it has awarded $500,000 each to Moon Express, Astrobotic and a third competitor, Rocket City Space Pioneers , the first installments of up to $30 million that it will contribute to the X Prize efforts. George Xenofos, manager of NASA’s Innovative Lunar Demonstrations Data program, said he expected one or more teams to make it to the Moon. “It’s definitely not the technical issues that’s stopping them,” he said. The contestants’ goals do not appear to face legal hurdles. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, ratified by 100 nations, bars countries from claiming sovereignty over any part of the Moon, but does not prevent private

60

http://www.astrobotictech.com/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/american_idol/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

http://www.moonexpress.com/

http://www.rocketcityspacepioneers.com/

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/moon/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/earth_planet/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/space_shuttle/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier


companies from setting up shop. As for mining the Moon, it could fall under similar legal parameters as fishing in international waters. Although some orbiting spacecraft have crashed into the Moon in recent years, 35 years have passed since anything from Earth made a soft landing there. To some people, this looks like an overdue invitation. “It’s probably the biggest wealth creation opportunity in modern history,” said Barney Pell, a former NASA computer scientist turned entrepreneur and now a co-founder of Moon Express. While Moon Express might initially make money by sending small payloads, the big fortune would come from bringing back platinum and other rare metals, Dr. Pell said. “Long term, the market is massive, no doubt,” he said. “This is not a question of if. It’s a question of who and when. We hope it’s us and soon.” Like the aviation prizes that jump-started airplane technology a century ago, the Google Lunar X Prize is meant to rally technologists and entrepreneurs. It is administered by the X Prize Foundation, which handed out $10 million in 2004 to the first private team to build a spacecraft that could carry people 60 miles above the Earth’s surface. (The winner, SpaceShipOne, was built by the aerospace designer Burt Rutan with backing from Paul Allen, the software magnate.) For the Moon competition, Google put up $30 million. Of that, $20 million will go to the first team to land a spacecraft on the Moon, explore 500 meters and send back high-definition video and photos. The second team will win $5 million, and the remaining $5 million will pay for bonus prizes like surviving a frigid lunar night or traveling more than 5,000 meters on the surface. Not all the competitors see dollar signs in the Moon. Rocket City Space Pioneers, a consortium of businesses, is using its Moon effort largely to market technology that will allow multiple payloads to share one rocket, greatly reducing launching costs . (In other words, as the lander headed for the Moon, it could drop off a few satellites in orbit.) “I think the Moon, it’s so expensive, we don’t know what the market is for sure in its entirety,” said Tim Pickens, chief propulsion engineer at Dynetics, a company in Huntsville, Ala., that is leading the Rocket City effort. Meanwhile, at Moon Express, Mr. Jain’s imagination runs wild. A robot could scrawl a marriage proposal in the lunar dust, take a picture and send it to the customer’s beloved back on Earth. A time capsule filled with mementos or a strand of someone’s hair — and DNA — could be sent to the Moon, where it would persist, pristine in the airless environs. “People become part of moon exploration,” Mr. Jain said, “and that has never been done before.”

Solves – Lunar Mining Prizes solve lunar mining better than NASA – faster development, lower cost, and the private sector is eager to reach the moon Klotz – Author of Discovery News:Space Diary ’04 (7/19/04, Irene, Space Daily, “Private Firms Step Up For Lunar Missions”, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04z.html, MA)

Thirty-five years after the first humans set foot on the moon, the United States is planning for return flights to the lunar surface. NASA's next group of moonwalkers, however, might not find the place quite as desolate as their Apollo brethren did. Their every movement could be tracked by HDTV cameras, courtesy of Virginia-based LunaCorp, and beamed to television and broadband Internet watchers on Earth. NASA's new lunar astronauts also could find rovers, financed by Radio Shack, scurrying around a nearby crater being operated by a bunch of school kids at a terrestrial science museum. A short jaunt in a lunar rover could bring them up alongside a remotely operated mining experiment extracting helium-3. The isotope is rare on Earth, but common on the moon and can power fusion reactors without generating high levels of radioactive waste. There's been a change in the assumptions about space, David Gump, LunaCorp president and co-founder, told United Press International. Fifteen years ago it was perceived that only the government can do space -- (that) it was just too expensive for any companies to do it on their own. That assumption has fallen by the wayside and now the question is how should NASA and the private sector interact. LunaCorp is developing a spacecraft called SuperSat to relay high-resolution, digital video of its voyage from Earth to the moon and create maps of the lunar surface. The company also plans to land a mobile, tele-operated robot on the moon that can be operated by paying visitors at science centers, theme parks and museums. Gump is positioning LunaCorp to ride NASA's next wave of lunar exploration. He formed a coalition of small firms -- he will not say yet which companies are his partners -- that last week submitted its pitch for a $3 million study contract to design a moon mission for NASA. The agency plans to award five or six contracts, each of which would cover six months of work, with an optional extension for another six months and $3 million. The proposal includes specific scientific, economic and security goals for lunar exploration, concepts of systems needed to support the mission and how NASA's proposed new crew exploration vehicle would fit in with the plan. NASA is expected to award the contracts next month. One concept, for example, would be to position a network of microsatellites around the moon to serve as a lunar navigation and tracking system, similar to the Global Positioning System on Earth, which is used to track everything from railcars to prisoners. The lunar system could be used to precision-land robotic cargo ships, said Jim Bensen, president of SpaceDev, of Poway, Calif., which has several lunar projects on its drawing board. The company already built and operates a science research satellite in Earth orbit, called the Cosmic Hot Interstellar Plasma Spectrometer or CHIPSat. Our vision is that we need competitive commercial suppliers selling services to NASA as well as other customers, Gump said. NASA should issue their top-level program goals then offer pay-on-delivery contracts and prizes to jumpstart the commercial sector. For example, to develop technology to mine helium-3 from the moon robotically, NASA could offer a cash prize to the first team that brings back 10 grams of helium-3 by a certain date. If no one delivers, no one is paid. It puts the cost of the mission and the schedule burdens on the private sector, Gump said. Shifting perceptions about the role of private enterprise in space is one of the goals laid out by a presidential commission, headed by former Air Force Secretary Edward Pete Aldridge, which issued its report on the future of the U.S. space program last month. We're at a new American space age, Rick Tumlinson, founder of the non-profit advocacy group Space Frontier Foundation, told participants at his group's Return to the Moon conference in Las Vegas this past weekend. Leading the charge into the new frontier, which Tumlinson calls an alternative space program, are privately developed efforts, such as SpaceShipOne, which last month became the first non-government, manned vehicle to reach space . The vessel was designed by Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites, of Mojave, Calif., and financed by Microsoft co-founder and billionaire Paul Allen. NASA was so spectacularly successful with the Apollo program, no one ever questioned if the government should be doing space or not, Gump said. It took until this year -- that many decades -- to actually raise the question: Should our path to space be done with Stalinist central planning or with the traditional American blueprint with innovative, enterprising companies? He added, We have a few wealthy individuals and if the government program is created to bring in competition, we may even get some of the major aerospace companies to get the commercial spirit. Gump called NASA's plan to build, in-house, the first lunar orbiter in the new exploration plan an inauspicious start. The agency instead could have issued a request to buy its data commercially and leave the ownership and operation of the hardware to the private sector, but he said he sees favorable signs the government is starting to change the way it does business. Having the government go back to the moon by itself means the government will pay more than it has to , said Gump, who has successfully raised money

61

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04z.html


from Radio Shack and other corporate sponsors for lunar missions. The government could get its data back at much lower cost by sharing the mission, he said. In addition to supporting the government program, the private sector is eager to reach the moon to see what it really can offer commercially . When I look at the moon, I see real estate, said Randa Milliron, co-founder of Interorbital Systems of Mojave, Calif., which is developing passenger launch vehicles as well as a lunar hotel. The thing is we really are in ignorance, Gump said. We landed on the moon in six locations several decades back. We need to spend some time on the moon to see what it is good for. Right now, we just don't know.

Solves – SPS Prizes solve SPS better than the aff with no risk of wasting government money if it failsGlobus, chairman of the Space Settlement Committee of the National Space Society and contractor at NASA’s Ames research center, ’10 (Al, “Space Solar Power Via Prizes” from Online Journal of Space Communication, Issue No. 16: Solar Power Satellites, Winter 2010, http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/globus.html, MA)

SSP will be very hard to develop. The engineering problems are staggering and the economic challenges even more difficult. While there is no market risk (the total energy market is measured in trillions of dollars), to be successful SSP must deliver energy at a price comparable to the alternatives - a few cents per kw-hr. A kw-hr is one kilowatt - one thousand watts - provided for one hour. This is enough energy to light ten 100 watt light bulbs for one hour. Some have argued such a goal is impossible, as space is a difficult place to work and can never compete with earth bound alternatives (Fetter 2004). Others have argued that supplying the enormous global market for energy can give SSP the economies of scale necessary to drive prices down to competitive levels (Globus 2009) and that the problems Fetter cites are really just R&D challenges that can be met. While a mature SSP economy supplying terawatts of power to earth may be economically competitive, how do we get there from here? The Japanese have one answer: a $21 billion program over 30 years to design and build a one gigawatt solar power satellite (Shigeru Sato, 2009). This seems roughly the necessary level of funding and time horizon for SSP development although a much more modest effort may be sufficient. In any case, if successful and unanswered, this project would put Japan in position to control the energy supplies of the future. Should no one else step up to SSP development and the project fails, then we (and the rest of the world) will not garner the benefits of large quantities of very clean, very reliable electricity that SSP promises. Let us suppose that America decides that SSP is sufficiently promising to match the Japanese effort. We could, of course, undertake such a project using NASA in cooperation with America's aerospace industry, utility companies and interested others. However, this project also could spend the entire $21 billion and fail to meet its goal. Even if successful, in this scenario only a single satellite would be built with no mechanism to insure that power would be produced economically. Fortunately, there is another way that might work better: prizes. The prize system I will describe will deliver at least one working powersat for each billion dollars spent. Should no one build a working powersat, then no public money will be spent. This plan is far less risky than a traditional $21 billion aerospace program and could deliver much greater benefits. Here's how it might work:

62


Solvency – Rollback Private sector exploration is the only way to ensure permanence – otherwise, the plan will get rolled back by future presidential administrationsFoust - editor and publisher of The Space Review ’04 (3/1/04, Jeff, “Commercializing the new space initiative”, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/109/1, MA)

At first glance, trying to commercialize these exploration ventures appears to be an exercise in futility. Apollo was successful without any thought to commercialization, while efforts to give the private sector a larger role on the shuttle and ISS programs have not been successful. The commercial benefits of efforts like lunar exploration appear limited at best: if there really was anything that commercially viable on the Moon—like the much-vaunted helium-3, fuel for fusion reactors that may still be decades away from reality—one would think the private sector would already be making efforts to exploit it. Commercial space interests today are largely limited to communications, remote sensing, and a few emerging markets like space tourism, not lunar bases or Mars expeditions. The biggest reason for commercializing the new initiative can be summed up in a single word: sustainability. One can construct a number of reasons for giving the private sector a bigger role in the exploration effort, such as cost savings to taxpayers through greater private investment. A number of mechanisms exist for commercializing portions of the plan. Public-private partnerships would put a share of the costs of particular ventures onto the private sector, in exchange for a greater set of rewards. Data purchase agreements would allow NASA to obtain the information it needed on the Moon, Mars, or other bodies, without the risk of spending its own money on a failed spacecraft mission. Prizes, popular among space advocates for years, have now been adopted by NASA in its Centennial Challenges program, although at an initially low level: $20 million in the 2005 budget proposal. However, the biggest reason for commercializing the new initiative can be summed up in a single word: sustainability. In the first public hearing by the President’s Commission on Moon, Mars, and Beyond, chairman Pete Aldridge immediately identified the difficulties in sustaining a program that will last for two decades or more—though several administrations and Congresses—as the biggest challenge facing the new initiative. It is difficult to imagine that the plan put forward by Bush, even in the broad goals he described, will survive in their current form for five years, let alone 15 or 25. A more commercialized initiative, though, might be better equipped to handle changes in the plan. If, in the worst case, a future administration decided to abandon the effort altogether, at least some of the infrastructure would remain in private hands for potential continued use.

63



Solves Economy/Innovation Prizes increase innovation and economic growthKalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December SL

Science, technology, and innovation are essential to America’s continued economic growth, and can help achieve a wide range of national and global policy objectives. One currently underutilized tool for stimulating technological innovation is inducement prizes, which encourage efforts by contestants to accomplish a particular goal. A related policy instrument is an Advanced Market Commitment, under which governments commit to buy a given quantity of a product or service that meets prespecified performance goals. This paper proposes expanding the US government’s use of prizes and AMCs in five areas: space exploration, African agriculture, vaccines for diseases of the poor, energy and climate change, and learning technologies. Under certain circumstances, inducement prizes may act as a useful complement to grants and contracts as a way to encourage technological innovation. The government can establish a goal without determining who is in the best position to reach the goal or what the most promising technical approach is. The government only pays the prize money if someone is successful, and may be able to leverage additional funding from foundations, philanthropists, and contestants who value the reputational benefits of winning the competition. Prizes can also generate public excitement and enthusiasm for science and technology, and encourage more young people to pursue careers in science, engineering, or technology-based entrepreneurship. Inducement prizes and AMCs cannot substitute for robust research funding, protection of intellectual property, and development of a world-class workforce, but they can be a powerful complement to those efforts. Although the optimal level of investment in prizes is not clear, it is surely much larger than the government’s current very modest investment. We still have much to learn about the strengths and limitations of prizes, but the time to start additional experiments is now. Science, technology, and innovation are central to America’s continued economic growth. As policy analysts and economists have long recognized, private sector firms and the government play essential and complementary roles in innovation, including the development of new technology. Broadly speaking, the government creates an institutional setting and sponsors a knowledge base that makes innovation possible, whereas private sector firms take the lead on deciding what innovative new products and services should actually be produced.

Prizes solve innovation and expand the market, based off decades of award dataBrunt et al., Professor of Economics -- University of Lausanne 2008 [Liam, , Josh Lerner, Professor of Investment Banking -- Harvard Business School, with a joint appointment in the Finance and the Entrepreneurial Management Units., Tom Nicholas, Professor in the Entrepreneurial Management Group -- Harvard Business School, “Inducement Prizes and Innovation,” CEPR Discussion Paper, No. DP6917. http://www.lem.sssup.it/paper_seminars/brunt_pk09.pdf, MA

We have examined what we believe is the longest available panel dataset of awards for innovation in an attempt to shed light on the question of whether and how prizes spur technological development. Using data on contest entries, together with output measures based on quality-adjusted patent statistics, our analysis suggests that inducement prizes – especially non-pecuniary inducement prizes – can be extremely effective at encouraging innovation. Interestingly, we find that entrant effects are largest for prestigious medals, suggesting that the role of the awards in recovering the costs of research and development was quite limited. The average monetary award offered by the RASE covered only around one-third of the estimated sale price of a winning invention exhibited. The prizes, the evidence suggests, induced competition between inventors and increased the quality of innovation, while the advertising benefits associated with the prizes likely increased potential market size. Our quantitative evidence on the utility of the prize system is also supported qualitatively. The Scientific American concluded in 1867: “It is indisputable that these competitive trials have done, and are doing, much to raise agricultural engineering to the highest standards of efficiency and economy.” With respect to steam engines, which had the largest impact on productivity growth of any technology in the mid-to-late nineteenth century (Crafts, 2004), the role of the RASE was again noted by the Scientific American in 1874: “An investigation of the results obtained from year to year shows a most extraordinary improvement in the engines, as regards economy and workmanship, and there is little doubt that the effect of these tests has been most beneficial to the users of steam power.” An 1864 report by the Society of Arts noted: “Without the prize system the manufacturers would not have been guided to the production of the class of implements really required.” We believe the prize contests organized by the RASE offer valuable guidance for the design of inducement awards today, since there is a reluctance to introduce a radical change in the incentives for innovation in the absence of hard empirical support (Kremer, 1998, pp. 1162- 1165; NRC, 2007). While the administrative costs associated with a prize system may be high – 36 and certainly the RASE did not consider prizes to be a profitable undertaking – our evidence suggests they are counterbalanced by substantial output effects. Based on almost a century of award data, we conclude that innovation inducement prizes do work.

64

http://www.lem.sssup.it/paper_seminars/brunt_pk09.pdf


Solves Economy/Innovation Prizes increase market innovation and economic growthKalil, 2006 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, Senior Fellow with the Center for American Progress & Former Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Technology and Economic Policy), “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” The Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution, Discussion Paper 2006-08, December SL

Science, technology, and innovation are essential to America’s continued economic growth, and can help achieve a wide range of national and global policy objectives. One currently underutilized tool for stimulating technological innovation is inducement prizes, which encourage efforts by contestants to accomplish a particular goal. A related policy instrument is an Advanced Market Commitment, under which governments commit to buy a given quantity of a product or service that meets prespecified performance goals. This paper proposes expanding the US government’s use of prizes and AMCs in five areas: space exploration, African agriculture, vaccines for diseases of the poor, energy and climate change, and learning technologies. Under certain circumstances, inducement prizes may act as a useful complement to grants and contracts as a way to encourage technological innovation. The government can establish a goal without determining who is in the best position to reach the goal or what the most promising technical approach is. The government only pays the prize money if someone is successful, and may be able to leverage additional funding from foundations, philanthropists, and contestants who value the reputational benefits of winning the competition. Prizes can also generate public excitement and enthusiasm for science and technology, and encourage more young people to pursue careers in science, engineering, or technology-based entrepreneurship. Inducement prizes and AMCs cannot substitute for robust research funding, protection of intellectual property, and development of a world-class workforce, but they can be a powerful complement to those efforts. Although the optimal level of investment in prizes is not clear, it is surely much larger than the government’s current very modest investment. We still have much to learn about the strengths and limitations of prizes, but the time to start additional experiments is now. Science, technology, and innovation are central to America’s continued economic growth. As policy analysts and economists have long recognized, private sector firms and the government play essential and complementary roles in innovation, including the development of new technology. Broadly speaking, the government creates an institutional setting and sponsors a knowledge base that makes innovation possible, whereas private sector firms take the lead on deciding what innovative new products and services should actually be produced.

65


Solves Innovation Prize programs produce cutting-edge innovation and inspire the public.Sargeant, 2008 (Benjamin, “The Use of Innovation Prizes by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration: An Analysis of Future Possibilities for Fostering Research and Development,” Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science and Technology U.S. House of Representatives, 7-28, http://www.tcc.virginia.edu/WashIntern/docs/papers/Sargeant_08_r.pdf)

Finally, NASA should make use of the expertise and capability of a substantial number of individual problem-solvers who use the Internet to work with agencies and institutions seeking solutions and who participate for the financial reward rather than the publicity . This sort of community is ideal for solving problems that are not noteworthy or exciting enough to draw much publicity, but are still difficult technical problems that NASA would like experts in 11 multiple disciplines to solve. NASA should investigate a partnership with a company such as InnoCentive that would allow the agency to draw on the knowledge of these problem-solvers while following United States law and NASA policies on conducting business with foreign citizens and properly handling international intellectual property rights. Overall, innovation prizes present a robust and effective method of conducting NASA research and development. They offer new ways for producing innovative solutions, increasing non-traditional participation from independent teams and individual problem-solvers, and engaging and inspiring the public about space. Most of all, innovation prizes provide NASA with new valuable, cutting-edge research and technology in support of its aeronautics and space exploration missions. Based on the initial success of the Centennial Challenges program and considering the vast array of options for expanding the program, the use of innovation prizes by NASA has a bright future.

AT CP Spends Money/No NB X Prize proves that NASA will work with the private sector to fund the prizes

66


Snelson - space activist, researching a book about the Personal Spaceflight Revolution ’06 (5/15/06, Robin, “Space prize confidential”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/621/1, MA)

NASA unveiled its biggest and best space prize ever ten days ago, at the National Space Society’s biggest citizen space event ever, ISDC 2006 in Los Angeles. NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale announced the space agency’s contribution of $2 million in prize money to the Lunar Lander Analog Challenge. The competition will be managed by the X Prize Foundation and first staged at X Prize Cup 2006 in Las Cruces, New Mexico. The X Prize press release handed out after the announcement spoke of a richer pot: “X Prize Foundation and NASA offer $2.5 million Lunar Lander Challenge. ” The P.T. Barnum of space, X Prize founder Peter Diamandis, upped the ante even more, saying that the X Prize Cup will have over $3 million in prizes, dozens of rocket-powered flights, spaceships you can see and touch before and after flight—and then declared team registration for the Lunar Lander Challenge “officially open.” If all you knew about the X Prize was that a cute little homebuilt spaceship won $10 million by flying to space without any government money, you might get the impression that NASA will soon award millions in cash prizes to low-budget teams that could beat the space agency back to the Moon. That impression is not entirely correct, but it’s not entirely wrong, either. NASA’s Centennial Challenges office wants to dole out prize money for contests that develop and demonstrate useful technology aligned with NASA’s goals, but it can only do so when an outside organization steps up to manage the contest . It may be true that similar sums are available from NASA for solar sails and orbital spaceflight and planetary landers, but it will take serious help from outside to make any of these NASA visions real. Instead of landing on the Moon, Lunar Lander Challenge hopefuls will fly remotely-piloted rocket-powered vehicles that demonstrate technology useful for Moon landings and takeoffs. (And, coincidentally, Earth landings and takeoffs, but don’t tell the guys at the shuttle office.) Level 1 is 90 seconds of rocket-powered flight, 50 meters high and 100 meters away to a flat landing pad, plus the same trip back. Level 2 is 180 seconds in the air and a successful landing on a simulated moonscape, uneven and possibly boulder-strewn, plus the trip back, another 180 seconds of rocket-powered flight. Level 1’s first prize is $350,000 and second prize is $150,000. Level 2’s first prize is $1.25 million, with a second prize of $500,000 and a third prize of $250,000. Some highly interested parties—Armadillo Aerospace, the odds-on favorite, and Masten Space Systems, the dark horse competitor—have followed the contest closely since it was first proposed at last year’s X Prize Cup: commenting on draft rules and straining the brains of X Prize officials as they struggled to design a competition that can be won, but not too easily, and that is exciting, but safe enough for a public event. At Space Access ’06, John Carmack said Armadillo’s plan is to take the top prize in both levels. Armadillo may even build its next big ship to compete in Level 2, the sort of vehicle that could carry a person to suborbital space and back. Dave Masten reorganized his company’s workflow, delaying work on its big center engine to concentrate on the eight smaller attitude-control rockets so he can give Armadillo a serious run for the NASA prize money. Masten Space Systems will relocate to Mojave next month and begin tethered flight tests of its XA-1.0 to prepare for the contest. At an early April symposium optimistically called “Space Billionaires: Educating Future Entrepreneurs,” Peter Diamandis said October’s X Prize Cup would feature eight or nine teams vying for $2.5 million in lunar-lander prizes. So who are the other six or seven contenders? In February, Diamandis predicted “folks like Armadillo, Masten Space, and SpaceDev would be interested,” and lately he’s mentioned talks with Jeff Bezos about unveiling Blue Origin’s super-secret ship at the X Prize Cup. But so far, only Armadillo and Masten have gone public with interest in pursuing the prizes, and they were the only contenders acknowledged in the X Prize Cup promo video shown at ISDC. Randa Milliron says Interorbital Systems may enter the competition, but the X Prize advance scout who visited Interorbital’s Mojave lab was skittish about their technology. “Our propellants are corrosive, but they are not toxic,” Milliron emphasizes. “That’s an important distinction. They are the ‘green’ substitutes for highly toxic UDMH, nitrogen tetroxide, and hydrazine.” Paul Breed has also expressed interest in competing. He’s testing his control theory with a styrofoam mockup and cold-gas thrusters in his garage, while awaiting word from the X Prize on how to enter the contest, and meanwhile wondering if it’s possible to get a launch license between now and contest time. (Armadillo and Masten already have theirs in the works.) TGV Rockets, an original X Prize contestant with its vertical takeoff-vertical landing MICHELLE-B, is still designing and doesn’t plan to bend metal until the design is perfected. The challenge is not something that fits TGV’s business strategy, says founder Pat Bahn. So, that’s two public, two somewhat under the radar, one definite “no”, and two more names dropped but unconfirmed by the named. Since the official announcement hit the news wire services, the number of interested parties has gone up to 25 or so, according to X Prize Communications Director Ian Murphy, but that’s all he’ll say until contestants choose to go public. Meanwhile, the final rules are still not released, pending one last NASA review, and, in fact, team registration was still not quite open by close of business Friday, seven days after the announcement. The original May 15 registration deadline (today) will be slipped to accommodate the delay, according to an email sent last week by X Prize Director of Space Projects Will Pomerantz to a select list of semi-pre-registered contestants and persistent others. That list didn’t include me, although I did write and speak to Will about registering a team. In truth, my team fell apart after only two days of kidding around half-seriously, and a vivid nightmare by our Chief Designer Tim Pickens, another veteran of the original X Prize. In this bad dream, Tim was working long hours on a lunar lander while agonizing about missing his family. The nightmare was no doubt inspired by a visit earlier that day to the Mojave Airport test facilities under construction by his Alabama company, Orion Propulsion, for AirLaunch LLC’s QuickReach DARPA project. No photos allowed, but there’s a nine-meter vertical test stand going up and a vacuum test chamber for really big rocket engines, among other things. Tim’s nightmare also has roots in memory. He served a tour of duty in Mojave away from his family a few years ago, as leader of in-house propulsion design in the early days of SpaceShipOne, and he also led X Prize team HARC, which failed to raise the money to build its ship. Some of Tim’s hobbies, like rocketizing bicycles and now a pickup truck, don’t always make the best impression on prospective customers, but it’s hard for him to resist having fun while making a living in the rocket business. However, after two days of having his sanity questioned and one revelatory nightmare, Tim sent regrets to the team and the X Prize Cup. This sort of thing could explain why there are no good inventions on “American Inventor”. Anyway, the forwarded email says that interested teams should request a mutual non-disclosure agreement with X Prize (Document A) and a waiver that allows X Prize to talk about the team’s technology with the FAA and NASA (Document B). When the rules are finalized, they’ll be sent to all interested parties. When Document A is signed and returned to the X Prize, registration forms and data packet (Document C) and master team agreement (Document D) will be sent. If all documents, and the registration fee (not specified), are received in good order before June 15, the team will be signed up. This procedure is a bit more complicated than other Centennial Challenges listed at www.centennialchallenges.nasa.gov, where rules for active contests are posted, and registration procedures are clear and open to the public. The X Prize-managed contest is the first Keystone-level challenge, with prizes from $250,000 up to $3 million, and the competition may be the most complex management job taken on by a Centennial Challenges partner organization. Until the Lunar Lander Analog Challenge announcement, only Alliance-level prizes of $250,000 or less had officially recognized prize-management partners. So far, only the Spaceward Foundation (www.elevator2010.org) has managed to put NASA money on the table and hold competitions. A $50,000 prize for the Tether Challenge and the same for the Climber Challenge went unclaimed in 2005, but the purses will be carried over to this year, giving each contest $200,000 to divide among successful contenders. That $400,000 may account for some of the “more than $3 million” that Peter Diamandis promises for the 2006 X Prize Cup, now that Spaceward Foundation is considering an invitation to stage its competitions in Las Cruces this year. Last year’s Climber Challenge was almost won by a device built in a dorm room. While space elevators are not currently part of NASA’s exploration architecture, some of the components like strong tethers and beamed power are. In 2007, Spaceward will inaugurate its third NASA-funded contest, the Telerobotic Challenge: can you and your robot construct a fuel line in a remote location with a 45-minute transmission delay? Useful, to be sure, and important, certainly, but even Spaceward Foundation’s Ben and Meekk Shelef are quick to admit that the Elevator Games can be boring to watch. Nor do any of the other Alliance-level challenges promise much in the way of visual entertainment or crowd thrills, worthy as they may be. X Prize Cup’s Lunar Lander Challenge looks like NASA’s best hope for the public inspiration value that’s part and parcel of the space agency’s goals for Centennial Challenges. Winning a space prize is not easy, and coming up with the prize purse is no simple trick either, but it seems that one of the most expensive and difficult parts of the equation may actually be managing the competition. Hats off to all who take on that Challenge—and, fingers crossed for luck, let the games begin!

AT CP Spends Money/No NB Private sector funds are ready to be used for space – government funding is unnecessary, but commercial ventures are needed.Keuter, 2004 [Jeff, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, 4/7/04, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf, MA]

Jeff Kueter: I am pleased to welcome you all to the latest installment of the Institute’s Washington Roundtable on science and public policy. This is a continuing series designed to bring to Washington people of scientific and technical renown to interact with the policy community on issues of importance. Certainly, there is no issue that is more important to the future

67



of the United States than what we do in outer space. The president laid out a grand ambitious agenda for us in January and since that time we have been discussing how we implement that initiative. On the 20th of February, the Institute convened a panel discussion exploring those issues and the talk today is a continuation along that theme. Brig. Gen Simon “Pete” Worden will discuss how the private sector can contribute to the realization of the president’s vision. Within just a few months, the X Prize flights, private ventures in manned space flight, will begin, financed by private investors and taking private citizens into space. Also within a few months the Department of Defense will launch a privately developed and funded rocket carrying a microsatellite into space. Billions more in private sector investment capital stand ready to exploit space if commercial ventures appear. The discussion today will explore these issues in greater detail. Pete Worden: The number of people here testifies to the appeal of the free lunch on Capital Hill. I am also reminded that this room was where a number of famous hearings were held, including the Titanic ship disaster hearings, so I hope that is not a preface to what will happen here in the next few years in the space exploration arena. What I would like to do today is discuss some thoughts that we’ve been tossing around with NASA, the space community and in Congress about the private sector and how it relates to the President’s new space exploration vision. This is an area where we’re just beginning to scratch the surface.

No risk of a spending link – prize funding would come from investment, not just the governmentAldridge 2004 (Edward, Chairman at NASA, Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf]

The U.S. government need not shoulder the entire cost for implementation of the vision. The Commission believes there will be significant private sector and international investment, if the recommendations made herein are adopted. For example, we are persuaded that the award of significant monetary “prizes” tied directly to the vision plan will spark entrepreneurial investment globally and accelerate the development of technologies and systems that enable travel to the Moon and Mars. In our hearings, the Commission also heard from state governments that are prepared to invest in America’s space infrastructure, if those investments can be appropriately tied to their own economic growth. Proper coordination with other nations will also yield alignment of missions for mutual scientific advantage and will bring cost savings that benefit all parties. America’s direct financial investment should be designed to leverage all such private and public investments. These monies, when added to what the federal government can afford, will indeed get us to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Politics = NB Gingritch supports prizes- he represents GOP sentiment. Whittington ’11- author of The Last Moonwalker, Children of Apollo and Nocturne. He has written numerous articles, some for the Washington Post, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Houston Chronicle (5/12/11, Yahoo News, “Newt Gingrich Prefers Space Prizes Over NASA Projects to Continue Exploration” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ac/20110512/pl_ac/8463287_newt_gingrich_prefers_space_ prizes_over_nasa_projects_to_continue_exploration) NH

One of the things that makes the presidential candidacy of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich notable is that he is one of the few American politicians who has given a great deal of thought to space issues. Gingrich not only disdains now the Apollo model of NASA sending astronauts back to the Moon or to Mars, but has some interesting ideas how to do those things outside the NASA infrastructure, according to a 2006 interview in Space Review. "I am for a dramatic increase in our efforts to reach out into space, but I am for doing virtually all of it outside of NASA through prizes and tax incentives. NASA is an aging, unimaginative, bureaucracy committed to over-engineering and risk-avoidance which is actually diverting resources from the achievements we need and stifling the entrepreneurial and risk-taking spirit necessary to lead in space exploration." Prizes have been used to advance space technology already in the 21st century. The privately funded Ansari X Prize led to the first privately funded space flights in 2004. Google is running a Lunar X Prize that would pay cash to the first private group to land a robot probe on the surface of the Moon. NASA itself has run a series of prizes under the Centennial Challenge Program. Gingrich has taken the idea of space prizes to the

68


ultimate conclusion by proposing a $20 billion prize for the first group to land a person on Mars and return him safely to Earth, reports the Cato Institute. Later, he added the idea of a lunar base prize for $5 billion. [ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ] Under the Gingrich vision for space, NASA would be relegated to technology development and little else. Prizes and tax incentives would drive space exploration and, eventually, the settlement of humans from Earth on other worlds. Gingrich has also publicly come out in favor of President Obama's plan to foster commercial space through government subsidies.

Space lobbyists support prizes, providing political cover. Berger, 2006 [Brian, staff writer for Space.com, “Space Groups Lobby Congress To Support Entrepreneurs”, 2-27, http://spacefrontier.org/2010/04/21/obama-champions-private-enterprise-in-space-over-bipartisan-support-for-socialist-nasa-program/, MA]

About 40 members of the grassroots space advocacy group ProSpace are descending on Capitol Hill to promote a legislative agenda big on prize competitions and other government-backed efforts intended to foster commercial space transportation services. ProSpace has been lobbying Congress every March for the past decade, pushing initiatives meant in one way or another to open space to the average citizen. Prize competitions were featured prominently in ProSpace's 2005 "March Storm" agenda with the group urging lawmakers to give NASA authority to put up cash prizes in excess of $250,000 as a way to foster creative solutions to some of the agency's technological needs. The NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which became law late last year, granted the U.S. space agency $10 million in prize-making authority and permits the agency to put up even bigger prizes if it first gets approval from its congressional oversight committees. ProSpace wants to see expanded use of prize competitions to spur space innovations. As such, the group is urging lawmakers to give NASA the full $35 million the agency originally envisioned spending on the Centennial Challenges prize-competition program in 2007. The White House budget request, sent to Congress Feb. 6, seeks only $10 million for the program. ProSpace will also be asking members of Congress to support the introduction and passage of legislation creating a new government entity called the National Space Prize Board and give it $100 million a year to sponsor prize competitions that NASA might see no reason to fund. "Centennial Challenges would not have offered the Ansari X Prize because NASA does not need a suborbital crewed spacecraft," ProSpace President Marc Schlather said. "But I don't think you will find anyone in the space industry who doesn't think it was a huge step forward when Burt Rutan won that prize." The National Space Prize Board, as envisioned by ProSpace, would consist of four presidential appointees and the heads of NASA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the departments of Commerce and Transportation. Schlather said the Space Prize Board would offer prizes of up to $250 million, for example, to the first nongovernmental team to conduct an orbital spaceflight with a crew . Another legislative initiative being pushed by ProSpace this year is the establishment of the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory Center for Entrepreneurial Space Access, or ACES. ProSpace will be encouraging members of the House Armed Services Committee to include language in this year's defense authorization bill establishing the center and giving it an initial $5 million budget. Schlather said the purpose of the center, which it is proposing be located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base outside Dayton, Ohio, would be to promote synergy between the Air Force and entrepreneurial space firms working on so-called operationally responsive spaceflight capabilities of interest to the Pentagon. "You only have to look at aviation in the first half of the last century and see how government and industry worked together to advance the state of the art," Schlather said. "Having a similar situation in spaceflight can only be advantageous." Schlather said the same mix of responsiveness and affordability that some of the entrepreneurial launch firms developing suborbital and orbital launch vehicles need to serve commercial markets are the same capabilities the Pentagon is trying to foster through efforts like the Falcon small launch vehicle program. Some of these same entrepreneurial space firms also are interested in helping NASA resupply the space station once the space shuttle retires come 2010. ProSpace volunteers will also be urging lawmakers to fully fund NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) flight-demonstration effort. NASA intends to spend $500 million through 2010 to help bring to market new launch services capable of delivering cargo and eventually crew to the space station. Schlather said keeping this long-sought effort on track is critical. "It is our feeling that should the Congress fail to fund COTS at its full level then it might as well cease flying the space shuttle and the space station program because without COTS the space station program will be untenable after 2010," he said. ProSpace, whose volunteers visited 250 lawmakers' offices last year and hope to visit at least that many again this year, is not the only space enthusiasts group that is walking the halls of the U.S. Congress this year to drum up support for space initiatives. In early February, 14 members of the National Space Society and allied groups visited 23 congressional offices over two days to urge increasing NASA's budget to the levels called for in last year's authorization bill. National Space Society Executive Director George Whitesides said he is working with the Space Exploration Alliance to organize three more lobbying blitzes this year.

A2: No Spending NB Independent private sector development is 40% as expensive as contractor research – they won’t waste their own moneyKeuter, 2004 [Jeff, president of the George C. Marshall Institute, 4/7/04, “Private Sector Opportunities and the President’s Space Exploration Vision” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/230.pdf, MA]

The involvement of this private sector is a big change and it is something that is really going to change the calculus in how we think about space exploration. So I wanted to introduce here the idea that private sector involvement does not necessarily imply a profit oriented motive; that is a point we can discuss later. The key question is how much money is available for space exploration in the private sector? One of the interesting things to note is that the US gross domestic product is about four times, in real terms, what it was in 1960 when we started the Apollo program. With the continued growth that we anticipate, it ought to be at least twice that in 2025. That has resulted in the wealthiest individuals in the United States now having assets considerably greater than $10 billion. There are probably a couple dozen of them in this range. This is a lot of money and there is an interesting thing about these folks – a lot of them are pretty young. If you’re old and rich, you tend to put money in medical research; if you’re young and rich, you tend to put it in cool things. Space is one of the coolest. Just to put this in context, if we inflate the cost of project Mercury from the early 1960s, which was our first attempt to put people in suborbital and then orbital flights, carried out by the government, it was slightly less than a billion dollars. The point I am making is that there are now a number of people in the United States who could easily finance Project Mercury. In fact, as I’ll discuss later, they are now financing a modern private version of Project Mercury; this process is already underway. The other thing to point out about these private ventures is that if you spend your own money, the process tends to be more efficient. To expand on this point, based on my own personal experience, I was involved in the last year and a half in a small booster program called the Air Force FALCON program. We have some private investors building their own rockets. Our assessment was that by spending their own money, compared to somebody spending the government’s money, their capability development was less expensive than a comparable Government effort by a factor of 2 to 5. So if someone wants to do the Mercury program privately, it is probably

69

http://spacefrontier.org/2010/04/21/obama-champions-private-enterprise-in-space-over-bipartisan-support-for-socialist-nasa-program/


going to cost a lot less than it would if the government did it. Now to give a couple of examples, one of those investors is Elon Musk and his SpaceX Corporation. I don’t know if you are familiar with this program, but this fellow, I think he’s 32 years old, made an ungodly amount of money in the Internet, while I was a mid-level officer. The jealousy seeps through. But he is not unique and he, like many of his colleagues, grew up on Star Trek and Star Wars and they want to be involved in space. He was interested in Mars and was looking at private investments to do Mars missions and quickly ran up against a problem of launch vehicles. When he looked at buying them from U.S. companies, he found that they were pretty expensive. Even for a billionaire, spending a couple hundred million dollars a pop on a launch vehicle goes through money pretty fast. I am told he also spoke to some Russian suppliers and concluded that they were a bit on the crooked side, which maybe explains why he got rich. But he decided he could build his own booster, and that was about two years ago. He is within a couple months of flying a thousand pound to low-earth-orbit class booster, which is going to carry a Navy test satellite (Figure 1).

Space Settlement Prize CP

70


1NC CP Text: The United States federal government should enact the Space Settlement Prize Act.

Enacting the SSPA solves case, spurs the economy, isn’t coercive, and avoids the link to politics – it’s spun as massively beneficialJobes, 2005 [Douglas, president of the Space Settlement Institute, a think tank dedicated to finding ways to make space settlement , “Lunar Land Claims Recognition: Designing the Ultimate Incentive for Space Infrastructure Development”, The following article appeared in the May/June 2005 issue of Space Times, the Magazine of the American Astronautical Society (AAS), http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/LCRSpaceTimesMay2005.pdf, MA

Creating an incentive for private industry to finance the construction of expensive space infrastructure without imposing a huge burden on American taxpayers could be achieved if Congress were to pass a lunar land claims recognition law. The Space Settlement Institute has developed a draft of such a law, called "The Space Settlement Prize Act" (www.space settlement.org/law), which could be a starting point for Congressional debate. As proposed by the Space Settlement Institute, the law would give the first private entity to establish a privately funded, permanent lunar base and space line the right to legal recognition by the United States of the entity's claim to a piece of lunar territory about the size of Alaska, approximately 4 percent of the lunar surface. Each successive lunar base and space line established by other, subsequent private groups could receive recognition of a claim of 15 percent less land than the previous one (to place a premium on being the first to succeed in establishing a base). Such a law would ensure that, if all its conditions are met, U.S. courts will accept private entities' claims and allow private groups to recoup their investments and make profits by selling deeds to parcels of its lunar land to American citizens, and everyone else, back on Earth. It would be very desirable if as many other nations as possible joined in granting recognition. Therefore, the draft legislation strongly encourages reciprocal arrangements with other nations. Among the conditions that would have to be met to comply with international space law would be the requirement that the space line and lunar base be open to all peaceful, fare-paying passengers, regardless of nationality. U.S. recognition of land claims would be an open proposition, equally, to consortia from any nation, and, in fact, it is very likely that some lunar bases would be established by multi-national consortia Governments are often seen as major supporters of new ideas for space. Proponents of a "space elevator," shown in this artist's concept, are hoping the U.S. government, through NASA's Centennial Challenges Program, will help to incentivize the development of a strong yet lightweight tether to support the elevator. (Source: NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center) and launched from non-American spaceports . Without something like the land claims recognition law, it may be a very long time before the space infrastructure that space businesses will need is financed and constructed. On February 10, Congressman Ken Calvert, the newly appointed chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, spoke before the Federal Aviation Administration's annual commercial space transportation conference. Calvert stated, "In 2010, the shuttle will be retired, so there is right now a need to move people into space quickly, safely, and reliably, I believe that need could be met in large part by the private sector.... The job of Congress is to pass legislation and exercise its oversight functions in such a way that will enable this industry to succeed ." In June 2004, the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy (also known as the Aldridge Commission) specifically recommended prizes, tax incentives, regulatory relief, and the assurance of "appropriate property rights for those who seek to develop space resources and infrastructure." It's hard to imagine a more effective way to help the private space industry succeed than by passing legislation creating a financial incentive worth billions of dollars to research, design, develop, and build vital components of the infrastructure in space. And what would motivate Congress to pass a lunar land claims recognition law? Unlocking

71


billions of dollars in private investment for the development of the space industry and space infrastructure would create an economic boom for this country in the aerospace and technology sectors. Untold new technology jobs would be created. More young people in this country would become interested in pursuing science as a career, inspired by a private industry race to the Moon in which they could possibly participate, just as the young generation was inspired during the Apollo era. An intensive effort on the part of the private sector to develop space infrastructure will have many economic and societal benefits. A catalyst like that which a lunar land claims recognition law would provide is needed now to jumpstart the development of space infrastructure. As Anita Gale points out, "The effect of adding space infrastructure will be like building a freeway in Southern California. After the first elements of infrastructure are in place, gas stations and restaurants are built at the exits, then hotels, and finally entire towns. After the first big spaceport or settlement is established, there will be a space construction boom." We can only close our eyes and imagine - and then open them and get to work to make it happen.

Solves – General The CP results in creating an open space infrastructure – this is key to lower launch costs and spur private investment of spaceJobes, 2005 [Douglas, president of the Space Settlement Institute, a think tank dedicated to finding ways to make space settlement , “Lunar Land Claims Recognition: Designing the Ultimate Incentive for Space Infrastructure Development”, The following article appeared in the May/June 2005 issue of Space Times, the Magazine of the American Astronautical Society (AAS), http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/LCRSpaceTimesMay2005.pdf, MA

Private investment is needed to create much of the space infrastructure needed for doing business, but without the space infrastructure to allow the establishment of profitable businesses, the private investment is unlikely to happen. This is the catch-22 of space development in today's current political and economic environment. A catalyst needs to be found to motivate the private sector to invest not just millions or tens of millions but billions of dollars to build the necessary structures in space. Private industry is motivated by the potential for profit, so a considerable return on investment is needed. Some have proposed government cash prizes and even huge tax breaks for companies that help to develop space. Both of those concepts involve an obvious deal-killer: they both would drain the U.S. Treasury at a time when budget deficits have reached record levels. It is very unlikely that Congress would approve multi-billion-dollar, government-funded space incentives. There is, however, one possible incentive that would not cost taxpayers anything but could generate an incentive of billions of dollars for construction of space infrastructure: rewarding anyone who establishes a privately funded, permanent lunar base -- along with a regular EarthMoon space transportation service open to all paying individuals -- with the right to claim ownership of a large tract of land on the Moon surrounding the base. A large section of raw land on the Moon could have a potential value billions of dollars to investors, venture capitalists, and speculators. The key to translating this potential value into actual value is a concept known as "lunar land claims recognition." The basic principle underlying lunar land claims recognition is that Congress would pass legislation recognizing private claims of land on the Moon -- but only claims based on the tangible achievement of establishing a permanently inhabited facility. This is, in effect, a prize concept -- a "Space Settlement Prize" if you will. To enable lunar land claims recognition. Congress would need to pass legislation outlining the specific conditions under which a private lunar land claim would, following the establishment of a privately funded lunar base, be recognized. The U.S. government itself would not claim any land, but would instead recognize the right of the private group, consortia, or business that finances and builds a permanent base to make a claim. Lunar land cannot be bought and sold today because there is no legal basis for ownership or exchange, but that could be changed by a land claims recognition law. A lunar land claims recognition law would use property rights as an incentive to motivate private individuals and companies to do something of great value for all of society. The legislation could easily be structured to include participation by the international community -- and in fact should be so to make it clear the plan is not an American attempt at a land grab on the Moon. It would, of course, be desirable if other nations were to pass similar laws, although initially that would not be necessary. Because the United States represents such a large fraction of the world's economy and often leads the way on economic matters, the United States's recognition of a private lunar land claim would be a sufficient start. To head off objections that other nations might have to the United States passing such a law, it could be written into the law itself that the private groups who construct the permanent lunar base be international consortia -- even to the extent of requiring inclusion of citizens from at least one developing country as investors or providers of an equatorial launch site. With a prize of billions of dollars'worth of lunar real estate, as well as the potential to operate profitable businesses once the infrastructure is in place, consortia of companies, wealthy individuals, and other private entities should be willing to begin making plans and investing funds to develop the lunar base and space transportation service. To build a permanent base and regular space line will require investing in not only the technology to make it feasible but also the construction of the structures. Once human and cargo transit vehicles and orbital and lunar surface facilities are developed, these structures and the technology behind them could be used by many types of space-based businesses. The same reasoning applies to the construction of better spacesuits, robotic tools, crew support infrastructure, and so on. In the process, innovations that would result in lowering launch costs might come about.

Property claims lead to international recognition of private space ownership – this type of framework is the only legal option

72


Wasser & Jobes et al., 2008 [Alan: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute and a former CEO of the National Space Society. He is a former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute. Douglas: President of The Space Settlement Institute and a promoter of space exploration and settlement. He has been published in The Space Review and in the American Astronautical Society’s, “Journal of Air Law and Commerce”, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf, MA]

There appears to be one incentive, however, that could spark massive private investment leading to the establishment of permanent space settlements on the Moon and beyond with an immediate payback to investors. The concept of “land claims recognition” (developed by author Alan Wasser and others over the last twenty years) seems to be the most powerful economic incentive, much more so than all the other incentives, such as government-funded prizes and corporate tax holidays combined. If and when the Moon and Mars are settled in the future through other incentives, the nations of Earth will eventually have to recognize these settlements’ authority over their own land. But to create an incentive now, governments would need to commit to recognizing that ownership in advance, rather than long after the fact. Land claims recognition legislation would commit the Earth’s nations, in advance, to allowing a true private Lunar settlement to claim and sell (to people back on Earth) a reasonable amount of Lunar real estate in the area around the base, thus giving the founders of the Moon settlement a way to earn back the investment they made to establish the settlement. Appropriate conditions could be set in the law, such as the establishment of an Earth-Moon space line open to all paying passengers regardless of nationality. The many other aspects of the land claims recognition concept are discussed in detail elsewhere, but a major point of related debate involves what international law has to say about the legality of a private entity, such as a space settlement owned by a corporation or individual, claiming ownership of land on a celestial body like the Moon on the basis of “occupation and use.” The following discussion lays out the argument that current international law, and especially “the Outer Space Treaty,” does appear to permit private property ownership in space and permit nations on Earth to recognize land ownership claims made by private space settlements, without these nations being guilty of national appropriation or any other legal violation.

Solves – General Passing a system of property rights is the only way to ensure transport to the Moon or Mars – the CP is a prerequisite to any successful strategy.Wasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

What is the real purpose of enacting a land claims recognition law? The creation of a legal system of property rights for space is not the long-term objective. The establishment of a property rights regime for space is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. The real purpose is to enable the expansion of the habitat of the human species beyond the Earth by offering a huge financial reward for privately funded settlement. It is the only way to create an economic incentive sufficient to encourage private investment to develop affordable human transport to the Moon and Mars. There are alternative space property rights schemes being proposed by some lawyers that would, instead, make settlement even harder than it would be now. They would require that, if you do pay to develop space transport, you would then have to pay the UN or some other body even more for the land you want to settle. Property rights legislation should be judged by how well it encourages space settlement, not on how elegant the resulting property rights system is. Property laws could be left to evolve after settlement, except that settlement just isn't happening without them, so we need something like this legislation to jumpstart it.

A combination of short and long term benefits ensures the CP jumpstarts private investment and exploration efforts Wasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

Hopefully, promising property rights will turn out to be enough to produce the necessary investment. But it is impossible to know, this early, whether it will be. After all, it is impossible to know now how much it will cost to develop safe, reliable, affordable space transport, or how long it will take. But we can be certain that promising property rights would help generate the investment we need. There is also no way to be sure just how much Lunar land will be worth when recognized deeds are being sold by people who can actually take you (or your customers) to that land. But a piece of Lunar land the size of Alaska would certainly be worth a very large amount of money. Right now there is a sizable demand for phony deeds to Lunar property, so it is safe to assume there will be a much bigger demand for real deeds to Lunar property. We'll talk about how to estimate the dollar value of lunar land in the answer to question 7, below. Those who say property rights are not needed until after settlement has actually taken place are counting on near -term incentives (such as space tourism, servicing the space station, etc.) to produce all the necessary investment in affordable space transport, the establishment of on-orbit infrastructure and then settlement itself. It is very much open to question whether such near-term incentives could be sufficient, but it is certain that adding a very big long- term incentive, on top of whatever near-term incentives there are, would have to help. Imagine that you are an entrepreneur trying to get a venture capitalist to fund your research on a radical new idea that you think might reduce launch costs by an order of magnitude or more. He asks, If you succeed in this risky venture, how are you going to use it to make enough profit to make it worth my while? You tell him your projections of space tourism profits, etc., and he is impressed, but not enough. Then you add: in addition to all that, if we do reduce launch costs enough, it could later be used to establish a settlement on the Moon and immediately gain U.S. recognized ownership of 600,000 square miles that could be sold, and/or mortgaged, starting the very next day. If that were valued at only $260 an acre, it would be an instant gain of an almost $100 billion dollar asset on your books. At $500 an acre it would be worth $192 billion ($192,000,000,000.00). Is there any chance that would not help your case? Even at only $100 an acre it would be almost $40 billion. In order to spur the development of affordable space transport, this law doesn't need to bring in all the needed investment by itself. There are existing incentives, but not enough. We need only bring in sufficient additional financing to tip the balance. The promise of property rights for space settlement is a very low cost, low risk, "do-able" way to attract that supplementary venture capital.

73

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf


Solves – Tourism Prizes solve space tourism- they’re key to spur private sector innovation. Sterner, 2010 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf] NH

True support for the burgeoning commercial human spaceflight industry would significantly limit the amount of government intervention in the infant marketplace, lest the distortions created by real-, or near-monopsonistic government domination of demand and capital markets swamp free market signals. In the long run, the best approach may be to follow the X- Prize model and create an award for the first company that meets certain very simple mission goals, such as carrying three people to the ISS orbit and demonstrating the ability to rendezvous and dock with another space object. Such an approach would theoretically reduce the cost of private capital by improving the possible returns on an investment. At the same time, it would reduce government financial risk by withholding cash until a winner had actually earned the prize. This differs from the COTS program in that the goal of COTS is to meet NASA-unique requirements for access to the space station, which requires intensive government oversight, whereas the prize program’s goal is to foster private sector innovation for its own sake, mandating considerably less government oversight. (The FAA would still be involved to regulate safety of passengers and the public.)

74



Solves – Modeling CP gets modeled globally – it sets new international priorities for space and becomes the de facto framework for expansion to the MoonWasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

The most probable immediate outcome of U.S. passage of a land claims recognition law would be the prompt start of international negotiations -- negotiations which will never happen otherwise -- toward a new treaty (or new bilateral treaties) in which a number of the weaknesses and compromises necessary at this stage could be resolved. Hopefully the resulting new space treaty will provide uniform international recognition of property rights in space in return for providing non-discriminatory access to all. Enforcement mechanisms, revision of the free access rules, permanence of claims, questions of sovereignty and legal jurisdiction, size of subsequent claims, etc., etc., might also be on the agenda. At the moment, the diplomatic community, much of which would prefer space remain open only to governments anyway, sees much higher priorities than a new space treaty. If this legislation passes, and nothing further is done, the U.S. will have created the de facto property regime for the Moon, and settlement will seem imminent. That should give the diplomatic community a strong incentive to start negotiations toward a new treaty.

CP gets modeled globally – countries copy our policies and get involved as investors and landownersWasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

The United States will probably be the first and most important market where land deeds will be sold to the public . In that case, it will be the U.S. courts that will rule on whether Lunar land sales are valid transactions or frauds. What this legislation does is tell the U.S. courts what standard to use in making that ruling. Further, it is not at all unusual for quite a few other nations to follow the U.S.'s lead on things like this. However, this legislation is most definitely not just for the benefit of Americans! Given today's global economy, it is almost certain that all entrants in the race to establish a settlement will be multi-national consortia. The investor/owners will be drawn from all around the world, as will the land buyers. Most particularly, the teams of aerospace companies cooperating to build the ships will be from many nations. It is just too big a job for one company, or even one nationality, to undertake alone.

75


Politics/Spending = Net Benefit SSPA avoids politics and doesn’t cost any money from the budgetThe Space Settlement Institute 11 (“The Space Settlement Prize Act”, The Space Settlement Institute, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/space-settlement-prize-act.html, 7/25/11) AP

The Space Settlement Prize Act is a draft law proposed by The Space Settlement Institute that would create, at no cost to taxpayers, a multi-billion dollar incentive for private companies to finance and build permanent settlements on the Moon and/or Mars. Included in the legislation is the requirement that these companies build an Earth-Moon or Earth-Mars space line open to all paying passengers. One thing has become very clear in the last 30 years. For the space frontier to be opened in our lifetimes, private enterprise must begin to invest heavily in space development very soon . It is obvious the government cannot, or will not, help humanity settle space - even if their intention were to do so. At best, NASA may help us get there; the rest will be up to the private sector. The only way to interest investors in building space settlements is to make doing so very profitable. No company can throw billions into a project without a huge profit waiting down the line. Even if they could convince investors to do it, the companies that tried would obviously go bankrupt. Building Space Infrastructure Is the Key The problem continues to be that there have been proposed no conceivable ventures in space that would return billions of dollars in any reasonable timeframe. Space solar power, asteroid or Lunar mining, space tourism, and so on will one day be viable businesses. But without the existing space infrastructure, which will cost billions to construct, building a hotel on the Moon right now would be like building a hotel in the Sahara Desert - only it would be a lot harder to get to. Constructing the missing space infrastructure - the gas stations, supply depots, repair shops, and rest stops on the Earth-Moon and Earth-Mars superhighways - that is the enabler for humanity's expansion into the Solar System. There is actually one asset in space that could produce a multi-billion dollar return for investors, if the proper laws were in place to enable ownership. The most potentially valuable asset on the Moon and Mars is the land itself, as real estate. Someday in the future, once there is a true permanent settlement, regular commercial access, and a system of space property rights, Lunar and Martian real estate will acquire a multi-billion dollar value. However, the incentive is obviously needed now, to spark the outward push, not later after settlement has already happened. Enter the Space Settlement Price Act The U.S. needs to promise, now, that when and if anyone succeeds in establishing a permanent, privately funded space settlement and space line, U.S. courts will accept the settlement's claim to ownership of a substantial share of that land. This concept has come to be known as "land claims recognition". (Incidentally, the same incentive would also apply to asteroids and any other object on which a permanent space settlement could be built.) Official recognition by U.S. Courts of a private claim of land on the Moon or Mars (based legally on the occupation and use by a permanent settlement) would allow the settlement to sell deeds to their Lunar land back on Earth. This could begin as soon as - but not before - the actual settlement and space line was built. The settlement company could sell to those who intend to book passage on the settlement's ships and use their land , but also to the much, much larger market of land speculators and investors who hope to make a profit on Lunar land deeds, without ever, themselves, leaving Earth. The Space Settlement Prize Act would cost politicians nothing at all to pass. Not one dime is required from the U.S. budget, and in fact the burgeoning space activity should provide a big boost to certain sectors of the economy. One reason the legislation is not on their radar screen, however, is the contentious nature of the international space laws that currently exist. The good news is that researchers at The Space Settlement Institute have found solutions and legal precedents that address every major objection. The objective now is to find individuals with the necessary connections to bring the legislation from a draft into real law. This is a hugely difficult mandate and help is needed.

76

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/space-settlement-prize-act.html

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/space-settlement-prize-act.html


AT: CP Fails – No Modeling Even if the CP fails to promote international modeling, it still solves – US market action is sufficientWasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

Because the US market represents such a large fraction of the world's economy, and because it often leads the way on economic matters, US recognition is by far the most important - and the place to start. But it certainly would be very desirable if other nations then joined in, especially those with significant space industries, such as the members of the European Union, Russia, Japan and China. Therefore, it is important that those nations see more benefit to themselves in joining than resisting. The legislation in this proposal strongly encourages reciprocal arrangements with other nations. It instructs the State Department to actively seek those agreements. If needed, it allows State to negotiate treaties that require that settlements be multi-national consortia, to assure other nations that this isn't going to be just an American land grab. If necessary to get the UN on board, it even allows State to negotiate treaties requiring the inclusion of citizens of at least one developing country as investors or providers of an equatorial launch site. Will this be enough to guarantee all nations sign on? Probably not at first, but it won't really make a significant difference to land buyers if Libya and Cuba, etc., refuse to recognize their land deed, as long as they know the US and the major spacefaring nations will.

AT: Land Grants Don’t Solve Land grants empirically work – Western expansion and railroad development prove

77


Wasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

Although classic land grants cannot be used in space because sovereignty is prohibited, the objective of land claims recognition in space is the same as the objective of land grants on Earth: the use of property rights as an incentive to get private individuals to do something of great value to the whole society. Much of the United States was developed by the use of land grants, from large parts of the original 13 colonies through the settlement of the West. Congress, not wanting to use government funds, used land grants to encourage the building of the transcontinental railroads. Fortunately, the application of land claims recognition to space has a big advantage over the use of land grants for building railroads. To get a railroad built, someone (usually whoever has the best political connections) must be selected and given a monopoly over the right of way before they have proven that they can and will deliver on their promises. Railroad companies' promises were often broken. In space the system can be structured to promote real competition, rewarding only those who have actually gotten the job done, by requiring actual "use and occupation" for all property claims.

AT: CP Causes Conflict No risk of conflict – not worth it to attackers and there’s other land to take or buy for themselves. Wasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’11 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, July 2011, http://www.spacesettlement.org/, MA

What about defense? Does recognizing a land claim obligate the U.S. military to defend the settlement? No! U.S. recognition of land ownership means its courts, not its military, must defend ownership. At the most, the U.S. might impose economic sanctions against any aggressor, if there ever were one, which there almost certainly won't be. Settlements themselves will issue land deeds, settle internal disputes, handle their own internal security and, in later years, their own defenses

78


as needed. But aggression is not going to be the problem it would be on Earth, because it really wouldn't pay economically. Hollywood movies notwithstanding, it really isn't going to be like the Old West because it's so much harder to get to and from the moon, or to hide once you're there. The dollar value of the land, at least in the early years, is its market value on Earth - its salability to speculators and investors on Earth, - and no one would buy stolen land from someone who is not the recognized owner. So the very act of stealing Lunar land makes it instantly worthless. It makes overwhelmingly better sense to buy land from the first settlement - which will be eager to sell land and/or provide transportation to and from the Moon at reasonable prices, - than to spend billions building one’s own space line and then waste it mounting a war of aggression to steal already claimed land. Anyone who had such ships could use them to establish a whole new legitimate settlement, rather than fighting to steal some of the 4% of the Moon in the first settlement. Similarly, on the individual level, early Lunar settlements, unlike old west gold rush mining camps, will not have a problem of stronger neighbors kicking weaker neighbors off their land. That's because the settlement and space line control everyone's access to and from the Moon, as well as everyone’s oxygen and food supply and ability to ship anything back to Earth. The fact that it could, if it had to, stop refilling an unruly settler's oxygen tanks will make it very easy for a settlement's small police force to enforce discipline among individual settlers.

AT: OST Stops CP The Outer Space Treaty doesn’t outlaw property rights – this is the consensus of expertsWasser & Jobes et al., 2008 [Alan: Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute and a former CEO of the National Space Society. He is a former member of the AIAA Space Colonization Technical Committee, former member of the Board of Directors of ProSpace, and a former Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute. Douglas: President of The Space Settlement Institute and a promoter of space exploration and settlement. He has been published in The Space Review and in the American Astronautical Society’s, “Journal of Air Law and Commerce”, http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf, MA]

So the question is whether it would be an exercise of sovereignty, and therefore a violation of the Outer Space Treaty (especially Article II) for the U.S. to pass legislation agreeing to recognize the right of privately funded, permanent Lunar or Martian settlements, regardless of nationality, to claim land around their base. Most experts now seem to agree that the Outer Space Treaty does not ban private property. The following are several examples: 1) As law Professor Glenn Reynolds and National Review columnist Dave Kopel say, [i]t is widely agreed by space-law scholars that the Outer Space Treaty forbids only national sovereignty—not private property rights. If, later this century, Americans settle Mars, they will acquire property rights to the land they settle . . . . The American government may choose to respect the Martian settlers’ property rights, and even defend them, without violating the treaty’s terms, so long as the government doesn’t proclaim its own sovereignty over portions of Mars . . . . As independent settlers, they would not be bound by the Outer Space Treaty, which only restricts the Earth-based governments that have signed it. 26 2) Joanne Gabrynowicz,

79

http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf


a professor of law and the Director of the National Remote Sensing and Space Law Center says, “[a]s regards to property rights per se, the Outer Space Treaty is silent. It contains no prohibition.” 27 3) Writing for the Fordham Law Review, Professor Stephen Gorove, former Chairman of the Graduate Program of the School of Law and professor of law at the University of Mississippi, School of Law, said, . . . the [Outer Space] Treaty in its present form appears to contain no prohibition regarding individual appropriation or acquisition by a private association or an international organization . . . . Thus, at present, an individual acting on his own behalf or on behalf of another individual or a private association or an international organization could lawfully appropriate any part of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies. 28 Professor Gorove goes on to say: . . . the establishment of a permanent settlement or the carrying out of commercial activities by nationals of a country on a celestial body may constitute national appropriation if the activities take place under tie [sic] supreme authority (sovereignty) of the state. Short of this, if the state wields no exclusive authority or jurisdiction in relation to the area in question, the answer would seem to be in the negative, unless, the nationals also use their individual appropriations as coverups for their state’s activities. 29 4) At the 50th International Astronautical Congress, National Space Society (“NSS”) representatives Pat Dasch, Michael Martin Smith, and Anne Pierce presented a report on space property rights. The presentation concluded that “[s]everal important principles have been established by customary law and treaty. First, national sovereignty stops where outer space begins. . . . Second, that national appropriation of the Moon, other planets, asteroids, etc., is forbidden. And third, that private property rights are not forbidden.” 30 Dasch, Martin-Smith, and Pierce noted that the third point had been controversial for some time. 31 But, they say, it is now agreed that, “The 1967 Outer Space Treaty forbids ‘national appropriation’ of the Moon and other celestial bodies . . . . It does not forbid private property rights on these bodies.” 32 5) Even attorney and space law consultant Wayne White, who opposes the “Space Settlement Initiative” (proposed legislation to utilize Lunar land claims recognition by the U.S. as the financial incentive to impel private industry to finance settlements on the Moon), 33 says: “Some interpret Article II narrowly to prohibit only national appropriation. Many others interpret the clause broadly to prohibit all forms of appropriation, including private and international appropriation. When Article II is compared to similar provisions in other documents, however, it becomes clear that the narrow interpretation is correct.” 34 Before the 1967 Outer Space Treaty was drafted by the U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (“COPUOS”), four other international legal organizations prepared draft resolutions. All of these documents recommended non-appropriation clauses which are broader than Article II. 35 The terminology in these clauses suggests that at the time the Outer Space Treaty was drafted, international lawyers did not consider “national appropriation” to be an all-inclusive phrase. For example, a resolution of the International Institute of Space Law (“IISL”) specifically distinguished between national and private appropriation: “Celestial bodies or regions on them shall not be subject to national or private appropriation, by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation or by any other means.” 36 6) A.F. van Ballegoyen says simply, “Article 2 of the treaty . . . needs to be interpreted in a restrictive, literal meaning, namely as just the prohibition of national appropriation. This interpretation would allow other entities like private companies and nongovernmental organizations to appropriate territory.” 37 7) And, in the Connecticut Law Review, environment and energy lawyer Lynn M. Fountain notes that, “[w]ithout assurance of property rights, private industry will not invest in the development of outer space. The right of continued use does not have to mean a declaration of national sovereignty.” 38 Fountain further acknowledges that: The Outer Space Treaty only bans national appropriation of celestial bodies. It does not specifically mention resources removed from such bodies, nor does it specifically mention or prohibit appropriation by private industry. The Moon Treaty is more specific on both elements and thus has not been signed or ratified by any of the space powers. 39 These experts and many others agree that the Outer Space Treaty does not ban private property on the moon, Mars, or other celestial bodies.

FYI – What SSPA Contains FYI – WHAT THE SPACE SETTLEMENT PRIZE ACT CONTAINSWasser, CEO of the National Space Socity member and Chairman of The Space Settlement Institute, ’10 (Alan, “The Space Settlement Initiative”, Oct. 2010, http://www.spacesettlement.org/law/, MA

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE This Act may be cited as "The Space Settlement Prize Act" or "An Act to Promote Privately Financed Space Settlement".SECTION 2. FINDINGSThe Congress finds that — (1) The expansion of the human habitat through the establishment of space settlements is a normal continuation of the age-old human drive to explore and settle unknown territory and will be of inestimable value for America and all mankind; (2) Privately financed space exploration and settlement is preferable to taxpayer financing, because the government needs to limit its own expenditures; (3) Space exploration and settlement with private financing will produce new tax revenues for the United States; (4) A new, additional, incentive is needed because the potential short-term profit sources are currently much too small to attract the billions of dollars of private capital necessary; (5) The potential value of land on the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid can provide an additional economic incentive for privately funded space settlement at no cost to the government; (6) Prizes such as the Orteig Prize and the Ansari X Prize have an excellent record of promoting privately funded innovation, so Congress wishes to establish a "Space Settlement Prize" to promote the human settlement of the Moon and Mars.

80


(7) At some time in the future Congress may be in a position to add an appropriately large monetary award, but, for now at least, the tremendous economic value of land claims recognition should be more than sufficient. (8) There is currently no international law on private land ownership in space, because most major nations have deliberately refused to ratify "The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, 1979, (hereafter called the "Moon Treaty"). The U.S. Senate's refusal to ratify means that the Moon Treaty's provisions are not "the law of the land" in U.S. courts, and therefore do not inhibit the actions of U.S. citizens or legislators; (9) More importantly, the framers of the Moon Treaty found it necessary to attempt to write a rule forbidding private ownership of land on the Moon, clearly confirming that such an objective had not already been accomplished by "The Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", 1967, (hereafter known as the "Outer Space Treaty"), nor by U.N. resolution GA/res/1962; (10) The ratification failure of the Moon Treaty means there is no legal prohibition in force against private ownership of land on the Moon, Mars, etc., as long as the ownership is not derived from a claim of national appropriation or sovereignty (which is prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty); (11) Presumably it is only a matter of time until new treaties are negotiated, establishing a functional private property regime and granting suitable land ownership incentives for privately funded space settlements. The U.S. will, of course, abide by such new international law when it has ratified such a new treaty. But, given the urgent need for privately funded human expansion into space, as soon as possible, something must be done immediately, on a provisional basis, to correct the present inefficiencies in the international standard on property rights in space and to promote privately funded space exploration and settlement; (12) For property rights on the Moon, Mars, etc., the U.S. will have to recognize natural law's "use and occupation" standard, rather than the common law standard of "gift of the sovereign", because sovereignty itself is barred by existing international treaty; (13) U.S. courts already recognize, certify, and defend private ownership and sale of land which is not subject to U.S. national appropriation or sovereignty, such as a U.S. citizen's ownership (and right to sell to another U.S. citizen, both of whom are within the U.S.) a deed to land which is actually located in another nation. U.S. issuance of a document of recognition of a settlement's claim to land on the Moon, Mars, etc., can be done on a basis analogous to that situation; (14) This legislation concerns only the issuance of such a U.S. recognition and acceptance of a settlement's claim of private land ownership based on use and occupation, regardless of the nationality of the owner, and nothing in it is to be considered a claim of national appropriation of, nor sovereignty over, any outer space body, or any part thereof; (15) The U.S. does not claim the right to "confer" private land ownership, and the U.S. states it is most definitely not making any claim of "national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or any other means" as prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty.SECTION 3. DEFINITIONPrivate entity: An individual, corporation, or consortium of companies and individuals or a consortium of individuals that is not controlled by any sovereign state or government.SECTION 4. RECOGNIZING EXTRATERRESTRIAL PRIVATE PROPERTY (1) All U.S. courts and agencies shall immediately give recognition, certification, and full legal support to land ownership claims based on use and occupation, of up to the size specified in Sections 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 below, for any private entity which has, in fact, established a permanently inhabited settlement on the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid, with regular transportation between the settlement and the Earth open to any paying passenger. (2) For a land claim to receive such recognition and certification, the settlement must be permanently and continuously inhabited. The location and the population of the settlement may change, as long as there continues to be an inhabited settlement within the original claim. (3) Deliberate abandonment of the settlement shall be grounds for invalidating land ownership recognition derived from that settlement, but there shall be no penalty for brief unintentional absences caused by accident, emergency, or aggression. (4) Recognized ownership of land under this law shall include all rights normally associated with land ownership, including but not limited to the exclusive right to subdivide the property and sell portions to others, to mine any minerals or utilize any resources on or under the land, as long as it is done in a responsible manner which does not cause unreasonable harm to the environment or other people; (5) If the requirements of this law continue to be met, all rights, privileges, and responsibilities shall be immediately transferable by sale, lease, or other appropriate means to any other private entity. (6) As long as the required conditions continue to be met, U.S. recognition documents shall remain valid for 100 years or until the U.S. ratifies a treaty that establishes an international property rights regime which gives comparable reward to privately funded settlement, whichever comes sooner; (7) The U.S. pledges to defend recognized extraterrestrial properties by imposing appropriate sanctions against aggressors, whether public or private. It pledges never to allow the sale to U.S. citizens of any extra terrestrial land which was seized by aggression. But it makes no pledge of military defense of recognized extraterrestrial properties. (8) If, after ten years, these limits prove to have been insufficient to get privately funded settlement efforts started, Congress, or some national or international authority it delegates, shall consider whether the maximum size of claims should be enlarged.SECTION 5. CLAIMANTS' OBLIGATIONS (1) The claimant must commit to consistently make good faith efforts to promptly offer, or arrange for, safe and reliable transportation to and from the settlement to all, regardless of nationality, who are willing to pay a fare sufficient to cover expenses and a reasonable profit. (2) The claimant may not unreasonably deny landing rights, and the right to transport passengers and cargo, to any other safe and peaceful vehicle willing to pay a reasonable fee for such landing rights. (3) The claimant may set appropriate standards of behavior and safety, etc., for passengers and cargo and the use of its facilities, but it may not act in an anti-competitive manner. (4) If demand for transport exceeds supply, and the claimant is making a good faith effort to increase the availability of transport, it may give preference to passengers and cargo offering the largest financial inducement.SECTION 6. RECOGNIZED CLAIM SIZEOn Earth's Moon: (1) The private entity that establishes the first such settlement on the Moon and meets the other conditions of this law shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape which includes its base.On Mars:

81


(2) Given the greater distance, higher costs and larger amount of available land on Mars, the private entity that establishes the first such settlement on Mars shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 3,600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape which includes its base.On Asteroids: (3) The private entity that establishes a permanently inhabited base on an asteroid shall be entitled to receive full and immediate U.S. recognition and certification of its claim of ownership of up to 600,000 square miles in a contiguous, reasonably compact shape that includes its base, or the entire asteroid if its surface area is smaller than 1,000,000 square miles.SECTION 7. SUCCESSIVE CLAIMS (1) No entity (nor two entities which are effectively under the same control) shall receive recognition for a controlling interest in two land claims on the same body; (2) Each successive settlement on a body may receive recognition for a claim of up to fifteen percent less than the preceding one was entitled to; (3) An entity in control of one settlement may sell services, such as transport, to a genuinely independent entity which establishes a different settlement and makes a second claim on that body.SECTION 8. CONCURRENT CLAIMS (1) In the event it cannot be established which of two settlements on the same body was established first, each may claim seven and one half percent less territory than it would have been entitled to if it were clearly the first of the two. (2) If, in such a case, the land claims of the two settlements overlap, and the claimants are unable to divide the land between them through negotiation, a U.S. court shall allocate the land between the two settlements as seems fitting, before recognizing the claims.SECTION 9. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (1) The U.S. urges other countries to adopt similar laws, and the State Department is hereby instructed to try to negotiate a new multi-lateral treaty, or bi-lateral treaties with individual like-minded nations, making the same land claims recognition rules into international law. (2) All rights and privileges conferred by this law shall be available equally to the citizens (individual and/or corporate) of any nation which passes laws or ratifies a treaty offering similar rights to U.S. citizens. (3) If need be to secure international agreement, the State Department is authorized to agree to treaties which require that all claimants must be consortia which include companies or citizens from several different countries. It can even be required that at least one of the partners in each consortium be from a developing country.

***Arms Race Net Benefit***

82


Arms Race—1NC The Plan causes a global Arms RaceGagnon, 2000 [Bruce K., Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, “Statement of Concern,” date refers to when the page was last updated, http://www.space4peace.org/statement/concern.htm]

But there are obstacles to U.S. space "dominance". Present international space law speaks against the notion of U.S. space control. The Outer Space Treaty of 1967, signed by the U.S. and 90 other countries, affirms "the peaceful purposes" of outer space and forbids "weapons of mass destruction" from being deployed in space. This same space law also declares that all interplanetary bodies belong to the common good. As NASA lands on the moon and Mars and explores other planets they are finding gold, cobalt, magnesium, helium 3 and other rich resources. Plans are now underway to place mining colonies on these bodies. The U.S. is now exploring ways to circumvent international space law in order to "exploit" these planetary bodies so that corporate interests may secure the enormous financial benefits expected from this Mining the Sky as is described by NASA scientist John Lewis in his book by the same title. The Columbus mythology is often invoked to describe our "manifest destiny" as it relates to space exploration and colonization. The noble explorer theme is used to cover the more practical notion of profits to be made in regards to space. There is big money to be made building and launching rockets. There is money to be made building and launching satellites. There is money and power to be derived by "controlling" space. And there is money to be made mining the sky. Another obstacle exists though. If the U.S. can "control" space, so might another nation. Thus we have the early stages of an arms race in space. How will France, Russia, China or any other nation respond as the U.S. consolidates its "control" of space? In order to ensure that the Pentagon maintains its current space military superiority the U.S. Space Command is now developing new war fighting technologies like the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Anti-satellite weapons (ASATS) as well as space based laser weapons. Star Wars is alive and well. Recent efforts to move toward early deployment of the BMD system, which could easily be used for offensive purposes, is expected to break the 1972 ABM Treaty as well as the Outer Space Treaty. Nuclear power in space becomes a key ingredient in the plans for space colonization and domination. Nuclear power is seen by NASA as an appropriate power source for interplanetary missions. Nuclear rockets are envisioned for trips to Mars and nuclear powered mining colonies are planned for the moon and Mars. At the same time the U.S. Space Command sees nuclear power as the primary source for the enormous amounts of power generation that will be required for space weapons.

This arms race will escalate to a US-Chinese Space WarMartel & Yoshihara, 2003 [William C., Professor of national security affairs @ Naval War College, Toshi, Research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race,” http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf]

Strategists in the United States and in China are clearly monitoring the other’s developments in space. How the United States judges Chinese intentions and capabilities will determine Washington’s response; of course, the reverse is equally true. As each side eyes the other, the potential for mutual misperceptions can have serious and destabilizing consequences in the long term. In particular, both countries’ exaggerated views of each other could lead unnecessarily to competitive action-reaction cycles. The military use of space has profound implications for the Taiwan Strait. What exactly does such an action-reaction cycle mean? What would a bilateral space race look like? Hypothetically, in the next 10 years, some critical sectors of China’s economy and military could become increasingly vulnerable to disruptions in space. During this same period, Sino-U.S. relations may not improve appreciably, and the Taiwan question could remain unresolved. If Washington and Beijing could increasingly hold each other’s space infrastructure hostage by threatening to use military options in times of crisis, then potentially risky paths to preemption could emerge in the policy planning processes in both capitals. In preparing for a major contingency in the Taiwan Strait, both the United States and China might be compelled to plan for a disabling, blinding attack on the other’s space systems before the onset of hostilities. The most troubling dimension to this scenario is that some elements of preemption (already evident in U.S. global doctrine) could become a permanent feature of U.S. and

83

http://www.space4peace.org/statement/concern.htm


Chinese strategies in space. Indeed, Chinese strategic writings today suggest that the leadership in Beijing believes that preemption is the rational way to prevent future U.S. military intervention. If leaders in Beijing and Washington were to position themselves to preempt each other, then the two sides would enter an era of mutual hostility, one that might include destabilizing, hair-trigger defense postures in space where both sides stand ready to launch a first strike on a moment’s notice. One scenario involves the use of weapons, such as lasers or jammers, which seek to blind sensors on imaging satellites or disable satellites that provide warning of missile launches. Imagine, for example, Washington’s reaction if China disabled U.S. missile warning satellites or vice versa. In that case, Sino-U.S. relations would be highly vulnerable to the misinterpretations and miscalculations that could lead to a conflict in space . Although attacks against space assets would likely be a precursor or a complement to a broader crisis or conflict, and although conflicts in the space theater may not generate many casualties or massive physical destruction, the economic costs of conflict in space alone for both sides, and for the international community, would be extraordinary given that many states depend on satellites for their economic well-being.

Arms Race—1NC Impact is ExtinctionMitchell, et al., 2001 [Dr. Gordon, Associate Professor of Communication and Director of Debate at the University of Pittsburgh, ISIS Briefing on Ballistic Missile Defence, “Missile Defence: Trans-Atlantic Diplomacy at a Crossroads”, No. 6 July, http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchelletal2001b.pdf]

The dizzying speed of space warfare would introduce intense 'use or lose' pressure into strategic calculations, with the spectre of split-second attacks creating incentives to rig orbiting Death Stars with automated 'hair trigger' devices. In theory, this automation would enhance survivability of vulnerable space weapon platforms. However, by taking the decision to commit violence out of human hands and endowing computers with authority to make war, military planners could sow insidious seeds of accidental conflict. Yale sociologist Charles Perrow has analyzed 'complexly interactive, tightly coupled' industrial systems such as space weapons, which have many sophisticated components that all depend on each other's flawless performance. According to Perrow, this interlocking complexity makes it impossible to foresee all the different ways such systems could fail. As Perrow explains, '[t]he odd term "normal accident" is meant to signal that, given the system characteristics, multiple and unexpected interactions of failures are inevitable \ Deployment of space weapons with pre-delegated authority to fire death rays or unleash killer projectiles would likely make war itself inevitable, given the susceptibility of such systems to 'normal accidents'. It is chilling to contemplate the possible effects of a space war. According to retired Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman, 'even a tiny projectile reentering from space strikes the earth with such high velocity that it can do enormous damage — even more than would be done by a nuclear weapon of the same size! \ In the same Star Wars technology touted as a quintessential tool of peace, defence analyst David Langford sees one of the most destabilizing offensive weapons ever conceived: 'One imagines dead cities of microwave-grilled people'?* Given this unique potential for destruction, it is not hard to imagine that any nation subjected to space weapon attack would retaliate with maximum force, including use of nuclear, biological, and/or chemical weapons . An accidental war sparked by a computer glitch in space could plunge the world into the most destructive military conflict ever seen.

84

http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/JPubs/Mitchelletal2001b.pdf


Arms Race—Link Ext Chinese-US Relations on the brink, the plan would spark a space warMartel & Yoshihara, 2003 [William C., Professor of national security affairs @ Naval War College, Toshi, Research fellow at the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, “Averting a Sino-U.S.Space Race,” http://www.twq.com/03autumn/docs/03autumn_martel.pdf]

More generally, international attention to China’s space program has been sporadic and patronizing at best, either denigrating it or treating it nonchalantly, predominantly because it has come so late. This prevailing indifference, however, risks overlooking the longer-term consequences of China’s growing space power and, more dangerously, the potential collision of U.S. and Chinese interests in space. From China’s perspective, the United States’ self-appointed guardianship of space is presumptuous and represents a genuine challenge to China’s national security concerns. For the United States, China’s extension into space symbolizes its ambitions to challenge U.S. national security. Deeply seated, mutual suspicions are evident in both countries’ strategic assessments as the contours of potential strategic competition between Washington and Beijing emerge. In essence, both sides agree that the other represents a challenge. Although this potential clash of interests is not yet sufficiently severe to be visible to casual observers, the United States and China are on the threshold of a space race that could radically influence international security. Interests in Space Conventional wisdom holds that space is so vital to national security and economic prosperity that the United States will do whatever it takes to protect its ability to use space. This rationale was enshrined in an influential report issued in January 2001 by a blue-ribbon commission on space,1 headed by Donald Rumsfeld before he became secretary of defense, which strongly advocated greater protection for U.S. space assets. The Rumsfeld Commission asserted that “[t]he security and economic well being of the United States and its allies and friends depend on the nation’s ability to operate successfully in space. To be able to contribute to peace and stability in a distinctly different but still dangerous and complex global environment, the [United States] needs to remain at the forefront in space, technologically and operationally, as we have in the air, on land and at sea. ”2 Furthermore, the report argued that “the present extent of U.S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which this dependence is increasing, and the vulnerabilities it creates, all demand that U.S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security priority. ”3

The Plan will affirm global suspicion of the US space militarization, pushing tensions over the tipping pointBrown, 2009 [Trevor, Masters of Science -- Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, “Soft Power and Space Weaponization,” Air & Space Power Journal, Spring, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html]

The United States has plans to weaponize space and is already deploying missile-defense platforms.1 Official, published papers outline long-term visions for space weapons, including direct-ascent antisatellite (ASAT) missiles, ground-based lasers that target satellites in low Earth orbit, and hypervelocity rod bundles that strike from space.2 According to federal budget documents, the Pentagon has asked Congress for considerable resources to test weapons in space, marking the biggest step toward creating a space battlefield since the Strategic Defense Initiative during the Cold War.3 Although two co-orbital escort vehicles—the XSS-11 experimental microsatellite and the Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space—are intended to monitor the space environment and inspect friendly satellites, they possess the technical ability to disrupt other nations’ military reconnaissance and communications satellites.4 These developments have caused considerable apprehension in Moscow, Beijing, and other capitals across the world, resulting in a security dilemma. Russia and China believe that they must respond to this strategic challenge by taking measures to dissuade the United States from pursuing space weapons and missile defenses. Their response will likely include developing more advanced ASAT weapons, building more intercontinental ballistic missiles, extending the life of existing ballistic missiles, adopting countermeasures against missile defenses, developing other asymmetric capabilities for the medium of space, and reconsidering commitments on arms control.5 The military options for Russia and China are not very appealing since neither can compete directly with the United States in space on an equal financial, military, or technical footing. Consequently, their first and best choice is the diplomatic route through the United Nations (UN) by presenting resolutions and treaties in hopes of countering US space-weaponization efforts with international law. Although such attempts have thus far failed to halt US plans, they have managed to build an international consensus against the United States. Indeed, on 5 December 2007, a vote on a UN resolution calling for measures to stop an arms race in space passed by a count of 178 to one against the United States, with Israel abstaining.6 The problem for the United States is that other nations believe it seeks to monopolize space in order to further its hegemonic dominance .7 In recent years, a growing number of nations have vocally objected to this perceived agenda. Poor US diplomacy on the issue of space weaponization contributes to increased geopolitical backlashes of the sort leading to the recent decline in US soft power—the ability to attract others by the legitimacy of policies and the values that underlie them—which, in turn, has restrained overall US national power despite any gains in hard power (i.e., the ability to coerce).8 The United States should not take its soft power lightly since decreases in that attribute over the past decade have led to increases in global influence for strategic competitors, particularly Russia and China. The ramifications have included a gradual political, economic, and social realignment, otherwise known as “multipolarism” and translated as waning US power and influence . “Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. . . . When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries’ domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions. . . . And when U.S. policies lose their legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing U.S. leverage in international affairs.”9 Due to US losses of soft power, the international community now views with suspicion any legitimate concerns that the United States may have about protecting critical assets in space, making it far more difficult politically for the Air Force to make plans to offer such protection.

85

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html


Arms Race—Link Ext NASA is a waste of money that would be spent much better in the private sectorMurphy, 2005 [Robert, adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, professor of economics at Hillsdale College, “A Free Market in Space,” Volume 26, Number 1, Jan, http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=525]

Beyond the obvious implications for sci-fi buffs and other space enthusiasts, the episode sheds light on the versatility of free enterprise. Most obvious, we see that the government is not necessary for space exploration; engineers and pilots do not suddenly become smarter when they are hired by NASA . Indeed, because a free market in space industries would be open to all competitors, we have every reason to expect technological innovation to be much quicker than in a monopolized space program. In a free market, the maverick pioneer just needs to convince one or a few capitalists (out of thousands) to finance his revolutionary project, and then the results will speak for themselves. In contrast, an innovative civil servant at NASA needs to convince his direct superiors before trying anything new. If his bosses happen to dislike the idea, that’s the end of it. Prior to the exploits of SpaceShipOne, the standard justification for government involvement in space was that such undertakings were "too expensive" for the private sector. But what does this really mean? The Apollo moon program certainly didn’t create labor and other resources out of thin air. On the contrary, the scientists, unskilled workers, steel, fuel, computers, etc. that went into NASA in the 1960s were all diverted from other industries and potential uses. The government spent billions of dollars putting Neil Armstrong on the moon, and consequently the American taxpayers had billions fewer dollars to spend on other goods and services. This is just another example of what Frédéric Bastiat described in his famous essay, "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen." Whenever the government creates some public work, everyone can see the obvious benefits. For example, everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon, and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. Or to use a more mundane example, everyone can see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars. What people can’t see are the thousands of other goods and services that now won’t be enjoyed, because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted to the government project. Politicians may break moral laws, but they can’t evade economic ones: If they send a man to the moon (or build a new stadium), consumers necessarily must curtail their enjoyments of other goods. Thus the question becomes: Was the Apollo program (or new stadium) sufficiently valued by consumers to outweigh its opportunity cost (i.e., the value consumers place on the goods that now cannot be produced)? At first glance, this seems to be a difficult question to answer. After all, how can we possibly compare the benefits of the Apollo program with, say, the benefits of the additional shoes, diapers, automobiles, research on cancer, etc. that could have been alternatively produced? The short answer is, we can’t. This is just a specific example of the more general principle elaborated by Ludwig von Mises: the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Even if a central planning board were truly benevolent, and even if it had access to all of the technical conditions (such as resource supplies and technological recipes) of the economy, the planners would be at a loss to deploy the scarce resources in an efficient way. There would be no way to determine whether the chosen output goals were good ones, or whether an alternative plan could have provided the subjects with a better outcome. The above analysis might puzzle the reader. Yes, it is certainly difficult in practice to tell whether the Apollo program (or any other government project) is worth its cost, but isn’t that true of any undertaking? Why should this be a unique drawback for government endeavors? The crucial difference is that private projects are subject to the profit and loss test. The owner of a private firm must pay market prices for all of his or her scarce resources. If the consumers do not then voluntarily spend enough money on the final product or service to recoup these expenditures, this is the market’s signal that the resources are more urgently needed in other lines (according to the consumers). It can never be the case that all entrepreneurs find a particular resource "too expensive" to use; if no entrepreneurs were buying it, then the price of this resource would fall until some did. For example, it would be unprofitable—"wasteful"—to use gold in the construction of bridges; the extra money motorists would pay to drive across a golden bridge would not cover the additional expense. Yet it is profitable to use gold in the construction of necklaces or rings. Consumers are willing to pay enough for golden necklaces (versus silver or copper ones) that it makes it worthwhile for jewelers to buy gold for this purpose. Hence, the high price of gold is (among other things) a signal to engineers not to use gold in building bridges, because consumers would rather the scarce metal be used in jewelry. The principle is the same when it comes to space travel. The reason private entrepreneurs would never have financed the moon program in the 1960s is that the financial returns from such a project wouldn’t come close to covering the expenses. Yet this is just the market’s way to tell these entrepreneurs that the computers, scientists’ labor, fuel, etc. would be better devoted to other ends. By seizing tax dollars and financing the Apollo program, President Kennedy et al. simply forced Americans to forgo the thousands of products that, according to their own spending decisions, they would have preferred to the space adventures. Is this perspective crude materialism? Surely, there are all sorts of things that are not profitable in the narrow sense, and yet are of tremendous importance to humanity. Consequently, are we not in need of noble politicians acting in the public interest? Well, consider the $10 million dollar X Prize. This was a gift designed to promote space exploration. The same is true of Bigelow’s $50 million prize. The private sector’s promotion of abstract knowledge (as opposed to practical, marketable discoveries) is nowhere better demonstrated than in the Clay Mathematics Institute’s million dollar awards for the solution to any of seven important problems. Historically, there were many rich patrons of the arts and science; didn’t the Vatican pay Michelangelo not only to create beautiful art but also to increase donations? Indeed, it is a common misconception that in the free market, "the highest bidder" determines things. No, in a free market, the owner determines the use of a piece of property. When a man lets his teenage son take the car for the night, is he renting it to the highest bidder? Of course not. A system of property rights, and the freely floating prices that accompany the exchange of these rights, is necessary to ensure the best possible use of resources. This is true in something as mundane as car production, or something as exotic as trips to Mars. The private sector can finance safe and efficient space exploration, but it will only do so in projects where the benefits (including donations from enthusiasts) truly outweigh the costs. The success of SpaceShipOne illustrates these facts. Now that the public has seen the potential of private space flight, perhaps it will become politically possible to axe NASA and return its budget to the private sector.

86


Arms Race—Space War Turns Case A war in space will end space exploration for centuriesAbrams & Primack, 2002 [Nancy, lawyer, Joel, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, June, Astronomy Now, http://physics.ucsc.edu/cosmo/AstronomyNow.pdf]

In the Star Wars movies and in other popular science fiction films, we see things blow up in space and the fragments quickly dissipate, leaving space clear again. But in reality, space never clears after an explosion near our planet. The fragments continue circling the Earth, their orbits crossing those of other objects. Paint chips, lost bolts, pieces of exploded rockets – all have already become tiny satellites, travelling at about 27,000 km per hour, ten times faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. There is no bucket we could ever put up there to catch them. Anything they hit will be destroyed and only add to the debris. A marble travelling at that speed would hit with the energy of a one-ton safe dropped from a three-story building. With enough orbiting debris, pieces will begin to hit other pieces, fragmenting them into pieces, which will in turn hit more pieces, setting off a chain reaction of destruction that will leave a lethal halo around the Earth. To operate a satellite within this cloud of tiny missiles would be impossible. No more Hubble Space Telescopes or International Space Stations. Even the higher communications and GPS satellites would be endangered. Every person who cares about the human future in space should also realise that militarising space jeopardises the possibility of space exploration . No real space war has to be fought to create this catastrophe. Any country that felt threatened by America starting to place lasers or other weapons in space would only have to launch the equivalent of gravel to destroy such sophisticated weaponry. And much of this metallic gravel, plus fragments of broken weaponry would remain in orbit. Who can imagine that someone like Saddam Hussein, who set fire to the oil wells in Kuwait and caused an environmental disaster with no military purpose, would hesitate to launch gravel if he felt it was in his interest? And whose fault would it really be, once America has taken the decisive step alone to put offensive weapons in space, against the wishes of even its closest allies? Our planet, so beautiful as seen from space now, would be blanketed in a cloud of metallic garbage that would be a sign of our cosmic arrogance and stupidity forever.

Arms Race—Free Market CP Solves 87


Privatization reassures the rest of the world.Brown, 2009 [Trevor, Masters of Science -- Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, “Soft Power and Space Weaponization,” Air & Space Power Journal, Spring, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html]

Evidently, rhetoric emanating from the United States regarding space has made members of the international community suspicious that America could bar them from the medium on nothing more than a whim. Such apprehensions unnecessarily contribute to further reductions in soft power. The United States should take care to ensure that other nations receive the impression that it has no intention of hindering their peaceful use of space. If those countries find current US space supremacy tolerable, then perhaps in time they could endure the United States’ possession of weapons if this were a significant aspect of US primacy in space and maintenance of the status quo. But if US rhetoric and posturing leave other nations with the belief that the United States has stratagems for orbital despotism, then the international system will hesitate to look to it for leadership. Furthermore, even if most nations cannot compete in space, they will nevertheless do whatever they can to oppose the United States. “Merchant Shipping” The United States would do well to keep a low profile for its military space program and burnish its technological image by showcasing its commercial and scientific space programs. Doing so would enable it to accumulate rather than hemorrhage soft power. Such a rationale is not lost on the Chinese, who certainly have had their successes in recent years in building soft power and using it to extend their influence around the globe. According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) administrator Michael Griffin, the Chinese have a carefully thought-out human-spaceflight program that will take them up to parity with the United States and Russia. They’re investing to make China a strategic world power second to none in order to reap the deals and advantages that flow to world leaders.30 Analysts believe that the United States’ determination to maintain dominance in military space has caused it to lose ground in commercial space and space exploration. They maintain that the United States is giving up its civilian space leadership—an action that will have huge strategic implications.31 Although the US public may be indifferent to space commerce or scientific activities, technological feats in space remain something of a marvel to the broader world. In 1969 the world was captivated by man’s first walk on the moon. The Apollo program paid huge dividends in soft power at a time when the United States found itself dueling with the Soviets to attract other nations into its ideological camp. Unless the United States has a strong presence on the moon at the time of China’s manned lunar landing, scheduled for 2017, much of the world will have the impression that China has approached the United States in terms of technological sophistication and comprehensive national power.32 If recent trends hold, this is likely to come at a time when the new and emerging ideological confrontation between Beijing and Washington will have intensified considerably.33 The most recent space race reflects the changing dynamics of global power. “Technonationalism” remains the impetus for many nations’ space programs, particularly in Asia: “In contrast to the Cold War space race between the United States and the former Soviet Union, the global competition today is being driven by national pride, newly earned wealth, a growing cadre of highly educated men and women, and the confidence that achievements in space will bring substantial soft power as well as military benefits. The planet-wide eagerness to join the space-faring club is palpable .”34 India and Japan are also aggressively developing their own space programs.35 But the United States does not necessarily have to choose between civilian and military space programs since much of the technology developed for space is dual use. The space industry provides a tremendous opportunity for militaries that desire more affordable access and space assets that can significantly augment terrestrial forces. As Alfred Thayer Mahan pointed out, “Building up a great merchant shipping lays the broad base for the military shipping.”36 The US military can maximize its resources, not only financially but also politically, by packaging as much military space activity as possible into commercial space activity. One example involves satellite communications. The arrangement the Pentagon has with Iridium Satellite LLC gives the military unlimited access to its network and allows users to place both secure and nonsecure calls or send and receive text messages almost anywhere in the world.37 Another example involves space imagery. Even though the government must maintain sophisticated imaging capabilities for special situations, it could easily meet the vast majority of its routine requirements at lower cost by obtaining commercially available imagery.38 The Air Force could also use space transportation, another emerging industry, to maximize its resources. Private ventures now under way are reducing the costs of space access considerably. It is possible that one enterprise could become an alternative to Russian Soyuz spacecraft for NASA’s missions to the International Space Station .39 Such enterprises could prove attractive, cost-effective options for delivering the Air Force’s less-sensitive payloads to Earth orbit. Space tourism, a growing industry, could enable the Air Force to procure affordable capabilities to routinely operate 60 to 90 miles above Earth .40 Advances that entrepreneurs are making in suborbital space flight could eventually evolve to a point where the Air Force would find it far easier, politically as well as financially, to acquire platforms capable of delivering munitions from space. Conclusion A glance at the global strategic situation reveals many nations rushing to develop space capabilities. Ostensibly civilian, the capabilities in development around the world are largely dual use and will have profound effects on the balance of power. The United States, therefore, would be foolish to slow the pace of its own space development. The issue at hand is not whether to proceed with space weapons but how to proceed with these capabilities and effectively manage the security dilemmas that will inevitably arise. By assuming a posture which suggests that its intentions in space are competitive scientific and commercial pursuits—and which does not suggest the desire to barricade the medium in times of peace for the purpose of geopolitical leverage—the United States can proceed without causing undue angst in the international community. Once we have laid the foundation for commercial activities (i.e., “merchant shipping”), military capabilities—or “military shipping”—will follow in due course and with far less controversy. If US policy makers can showcase scientific and commercial space endeavors while avoiding the perception of orbital despotism, they can steadily build dominant military space capabilities and retain soft power.

Privatization solves international tensionsENS, 2010 [Environment News Service, “Obama's New Space Policy Peaceful But Guarded”, 6-28, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2010/2010-06-28-02.html]

"In addition," he said, "we will expand our partnerships with private industry, allowing commercial companies to take a larger role in the exploration of space while NASA pursues those activities the agency is uniquely qualified to do." "This policy will enable a vibrant, job-creating, transportation system for taking humans to and from low-Earth orbit, which should significantly contribute to the national economy, benefit all of our nation's citizens, and enable exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, " Bolden said. "This policy promises to transform human spaceflight for future generations. "If there's one really broad theme it is international cooperation, which is woven throughout the new policy and it's our sort of foundational emphasis for achieving all of our goals in space," Barry Pavel, senior director for defense policy and strategy for the National Security Council, told reporters.

***USSG Net Benefit***

88

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2010/2010-06-28-02.html

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2010/2010-06-28-02.html

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/spr09/brown.html


USSG—1NC Privatization of the space sector allows for the restructuring of the government and development of a United States Space Guard (USSG)Bennett, 11 (James, 2011, “Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space,” The New Atlantis, author of The Anglosphere Challenge, has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades CMBut the past decade’s emergence of a new wave of entrepreneurial launch companies — including the successful flights of the suborbital SpaceShipOne in 2004 and the orbital Falcon 9 in 2010 — shows that the space-launch industry is still young and still has plenty of flexibility to innovate to drive down costs substantially. These cost reductions may be sufficient to keep non-market or quasi-market actors like Russia and China from entirely dominating the world space-launch market — which in turn opens up the prospect that the American space-launch industry will grow to become more than an appendage of the U.S. government. This, in turn, would permit us to start restructuring the government institutions involved in America’s space sector. Since the dawn of the space age, the assumption has been that the U.S. government would either have to operate space launches itself or would have to finance and closely oversee contractors that would be utterly dependent on it. But now that it is feasible to expect the emergence of a set of launch and orbital operations by serious private

89


actors, we can consider how best to reorganize the American-government space establishment. Creating a Coast Guard for Space Over the years, analysts have proposed several alternative schemes for organizing the American space sector. Most of these proposals have related specifically to the nation’s military space activities. So, for instance, some proposals call for the creation of a Space Corps that would relate to the Air Force in much the same way that the Marine Corps relates to the Navy: autonomous, but under the control of the Secretary of the Navy, and relying on the Navy for various functions such as legal and medical services. Other proposals would adopt the model of the historical Army Air Corps or the later U.S. Army Air Forces, making space a quasi-autonomous service within the parent service. There is another proposal, however, that would restructure not just military but also civilian space activities. This proposal would create a U.S. Space Guard on the model of the U.S. Coast Guard, charged with carrying out a variety of infrastructure, support, constabulary, and regulatory tasks. The Space Guard would assume some functions now performed by the Air Force, NASA, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

USSG key to military superiority—gives us the ability to concentrate on the coming battlefield of spaceDinerman 06 — editor and publisher of spaceequity.com, well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space activities since 1983. written for a variety of publications including Ad Astra, The Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, work also appears in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, and he was the author for the text book, "Space Sciences for Students,” part-time consultant for the US Defense Department (Feb 27, 2006, Taylor, “United States Space Force: sooner rather than later” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/565/1) CMThe most important reason the US Department of Defense needs a Space Force is that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth. The “terrain” of the Earth-Moon system combines orbital dynamics and gravitational forces in constant and sometimes subtle interaction. Senior officers, no matter how sincere, whose formative experiences consist of flying machines that are supported by the relationship between propulsion and air pressure cannot be expected to instinctively understand the nature of space warfare. The small space cadre that is slowly coming into existence will, without doubt, never produce an Air Force Chief of Staff. A new space service, with its own promotion ladder and its own training and doctrine development system, will insure that when the Joint Chiefs and their civilian superiors meet to plan an operation, someone with four stars will be there to make sure that the capabilities and limitations of US and enemy space forces are taken into account. Military space expertise is becoming more widespread than ever and even the least sophisticated future foe will know enough to try and avoid being detected or targeted by US or allied satellites. With its own budget, the space service will be able to concentrate on making sure that all the other services have access to the best space-based support possible. The Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and others who use America’s military space assets will not have to worry about institutional favoritism , although it should be pointed out that, since 2001, there has not been any evidence that the USAF has abused its authority to the detriment of the other services. Instead, the problem is that, within the Air Force, there has not been enough top-level attention paid to the needs of space operations. Leaders inside the Pentagon keep saying that space is the critical backbone of network-centric warfare. The evidence shows that, without space, American global military superiority would not be anywhere near what it is today. Our enemies know this and are working hard to find new ways to damage and degrade US space superiority. To counter this, and to give America a new set of grand strategic options, a new space force is needed: not immediately, but within the next five or ten years. Future presidential candidates, if they want to show they are serious about national security, should consider making this reform part of their platform.

Hegemony prevents prolif and global nuclear war.Khalilzad, US Ambassador to UN, 1995 (Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to the United Nations. “Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War.” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2. pg. 84 Spring 1995)

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 long-term 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. Precluding the rise of a hostile global rival is a good guide for defining what interests the United States should regard as vital and for which of them it should be ready to use force and put American lives at risk. It is a good prism for identifying threats, setting priorities for U.S. policy toward various regions and states, and assessing needs for military capabilities and modernization.

90



USSG—Space Capacity (General) The USSG solves space debris and asteroid tracking—it has the advantages of both civil and military agencies.Bennett, 11 (James, 2011, “Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space,” The New Atlantis, author of The Anglosphere Challenge, has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades CM(c) Space situational awareness. The task of tracking objects in space, whether satellites or debris orbiting the planet, weapons systems launched by other countries, or manmade or natural threats to U.S. assets in space, is called space situational awareness (SSA), and it is currently the responsibility of the U.S. Air Force. But those functions perennially suffer from a shortage of skilled analysts, and Air Force personnel policies and attitudes discourage the accumulation of analytical competence in officers (as opposed to managerial skills). Going forward, the new USSG would serve as the responsible agency for non-military SSA capabilities and would act as the official U.S. governmental representative in international SSA cooperative efforts that are not primarily military in nature. The USSG’s status as an armed service would render it more acceptable as an interface with the USAF-run military side of SSA; its status as a non-DOD agency with a civil regulatory function would render it more acceptable as an international interface with civil agencies. (d) Space debris reduction and mitigation. Given USSG’s combination of engineering and infrastructure capabilities, SSA capabilities, and regulatory authority, it would provide a natural lead agency for reducing and mitigating space debris, and ultimately for protecting the Earth against other potentially hazardous space objects. This would be a clear analogue to the Coast Guard’s responsibility for hazards to navigation.

USSG—Space Capacity/Security The USSG will ensure secure, timely space launches—parallels to VISA prove

91


Bennett, 11 (James, 2011, “Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space,” The New Atlantis, author of The Anglosphere Challenge, has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades CM(e) Space reserve capacity. The United States has the ability to surge its sealift capacity thanks to the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) program; it has the ability to rapidly step up its aviation capacity thanks to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet. A similar program will someday be necessary to ensure the ability to quickly expand the nation’s capacity for space activities; given the close ties to the U.S. space transportation and orbital operations industry being envisioned for USSG, it would naturally be suited to administer such a program. (f) Enforcing order. It is worth pointing out that USSG officers would be, like Coast Guardsmen, officers of the U.S. government capable of operating as a constabulary. This is in contrast to NASA personnel (who are only employees, not officers, of the government) and military personnel (who are forbidden under the Posse Comitatus Act from exercising police powers over civilians). To date, there have been no instances of needing to exercise police powers in space. However, as the number and duration of missions increase, this will inevitably change: At some point, having constabulary officers with civil authority and training available will be useful. The USSG could also provide its own physical security at launch sites and other ground infrastructure.

USSG solves for space security and United States space controlMcKinley, 2000 [Cynthia, “The Guardians of Space,” Aerospace Power Journal, MS, Troy State University; MAAS, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, commander of the 21st Operations Support Squadron] CMThe recommended organizational structure for space services is the United States Space Guard (USSG), a fusion of civil, commercial, and military space personnel and missions. Although an armed service and a ready instrument of national policy, the USSG would remain an operating administration of the DOT for day-to-day operations. In times of crisis, it may be designated as an arm of the United States Air Force. The Space Guard's funding should come not only from DOD coffers, but also from all military, civil, and commercial enterprises that benefit from its services. In the near term, the Space Guard's responsibilities should include all space operations currently tracked under the national space policy's mission areas of space support, force enhancement, and space control. It should work existing issues such as spaceport safety and security, satellite design, debris minimization, and more. Like the historical evolution of its coastal counterpart, the USSG should soon assume responsibility for missions such as fixing disabled satellites, resupplying stations, refueling satellites, eliminating space debris, conducting astronaut search and rescue, monitoring treaties and sovereignty issues, arbitrating spectrum and sovereignty issues, arbitrating spectrum interference, and controlling space lanes. Its personnel should come from existing space structures such as those found within the military, NASA, DOT, FAA, and others. Regarding the career progression of USSG personnel, they will have space services opportunities ranging from space launch and range operations, to satellite tracking and commanding, to on-orbit mission specialties. The Space Guard will at all times be commanded by general officers schooled, trained, and experienced in space specialties. Space professionals will have a clear and broadened career path, and other space specialists will lead them. Pursuing the above recommendation results in an organization dedicated to civil space concerns, acceptable to many space stakeholders, and involved in national security--all the while allowing other organizations to focus on their core competencies. Implementing the proposed model and preparing our nation's space forces for the future require the Air Force to return to its roots, to refocus its attention on its core war-fighting responsibilities, and to accept the fact that it must let everything lying outside the framework of global reach and global power find a new home. In short, it means that the Air Force must accept the imperative for a fundamental divestiture of all space services. By divesting space services, the Air Force will be free to focus on its core war-fighting responsibilities. It will be unencumbered by the enormous financial responsibilities of administering the nation's space services. Its culture will encompass the flying and fighting corps that has served it so well throughout its history. And it will be able to dedicate its space efforts to developing the future space force application systems that will finally allow it to claim the aerospace title. On a larger scale, the nation will have reduced the size of its force structure while improving its ability to exploit space for national benefit.

USSG—Econ USSG solves the economy—protects vital commercial utilitiesRusso, 2000 (Lt Col, USAF (Feb 2002, Anthony J., “THE 65-MILE SEAM” http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA420645) CMAn issue closely related to the ability to achieve space superiority in wartime is the need to protect space-based public services across the spectrum of war and peace. While a concept of defensive counterspace (DCS) is briefly and vaguely described in Air Force doctrine, 46 this does not directly address the mission of providing security and the assurance of safe passage or operation to commercial entities providing global utilities. Some of these utilities are important to military operations, but they are absolutely vital to the U.S. and world economy. There is no corresponding Air Force mission ; the closest analogy may be

92

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA420645

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA420645


the U.S. Coast Guard. It has been suggested the U.S. should place responsibility for space operations in a formal United States Space Guard (USSG). The rational is that the space medium is as vital to America’s economy, the U.S. standard of living, and national security as the free navigation and private access to the seas was a century ago. 47

USSG—Commercial Conflicts: Space Guard solves commercial conflicts—its distinction from NASA means there’s no chance for conflict of interestBennett, 11 (James, 2011, “Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space,” The New Atlantis, author of The Anglosphere Challenge, has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades) CMThe creation of a Space Guard to carry out routine infrastructure and support functions, regulatory and constabulary functions, and much of the primary interface with the private launch industry would establish a separate and distinct organization accustomed from inception to using commercial services. To the extent that the new NASA would retain the capability to design and develop launch vehicles, the agency would no longer be subject to the conflicts of interest that now crop up when it has to decide whether to build its own launch vehicle or buy launch services from a private provider. Since those build-or-buy decisions would be in the hands of the Space Guard instead of NASA, such conflicts of interest would be averted.

93


USSG—Hard Power USSG key to military superiority—gives us the ability to concentrate on the coming battlefield of spaceDinerman 06 — editor and publisher of spaceequity.com, well-known and respected space writer regarding military and civilian space activities since 1983. written for a variety of publications including Ad Astra, The Wall Street Journal and the American Spectator, work also appears in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, and he was the author for the text book, "Space Sciences for Students,” part-time consultant for the US Defense Department (Feb 27, 2006, Taylor, “United States Space Force: sooner rather than later” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/565/1) CMThe most important reason the US Department of Defense needs a Space Force is that space has different properties from land, sea, and air environments found on Earth. The “terrain” of the Earth-Moon system combines orbital dynamics and gravitational forces in constant and sometimes subtle interaction. Senior officers, no matter how sincere, whose formative experiences consist of flying machines that are supported by the relationship between propulsion and air pressure cannot be expected to instinctively understand the nature of space warfare. The small space cadre that is slowly coming into existence will, without doubt, never produce an Air Force Chief of Staff. A new space service, with its own promotion ladder and its own training and doctrine development system, will insure that when the Joint Chiefs and their civilian superiors meet to plan an operation, someone with four stars will be there to make sure that the capabilities and limitations of US and enemy space forces are taken into account. Military space expertise is becoming more widespread than ever and even the least sophisticated future foe will know enough to try and avoid being detected or targeted by US or allied satellites. With its own budget, the space service will be able to concentrate on making sure that all the other services have access to the best space-based support possible. The Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, and others who use America’s military space assets will not have to worry about institutional favoritism , although it should be pointed out that, since 2001, there has not been any evidence that the USAF has abused its authority to the detriment of the other services. Instead, the problem is that, within the Air Force, there has not been enough top-level attention paid to the needs of space operations. Leaders inside the Pentagon keep saying that space is the critical backbone of network-centric warfare. The evidence shows that, without space, American global military superiority would not be anywhere near what it is today. Our enemies know this and are working hard to find new ways to damage and degrade US space superiority. To counter this, and to give America a new set

94



of grand strategic options, a new space force is needed: not immediately, but within the next five or ten years. Future presidential candidates, if they want to show they are serious about national security, should consider making this reform part of their platform.

AT USSG Doesn’t Get Created Political support for a USSG is strong—powerful lobbies will sway Congress, and budgetary restructuring solves the DOD/Air ForceBennett, 11 (James, 2011, “Proposing a ‘Coast Guard’ for Space,” The New Atlantis, author of The Anglosphere Challenge, has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades) CMFor starters, if the Space Guard were proposed in such a way that it is neutral in terms of congressional districts, members of Congress would be far less likely to oppose it. When Wernher von Braun’s rocket team at the U.S. Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama was transferred from the Army to NASA, it did not cause federal dollars to leave Huntsville — in fact, just the opposite happened. Similarly, NASA functions transferred to the USSG would remain physically present in the same location, probably as tenants in the same NASA facilities. This would likely diminish congressional opposition to the creation of a Space Guard.There are also ways in which the budget changes associated with the creation of a Space Guard could be understood by the Department of Defense to be a political winner. A Space Guard created in (for purposes of discussion) the Department of Transportation would move a substantial sum of funding to a civil agency, which would allow the Department of Defense to represent it as a “defense cut” while still enjoying access to the functionalities it would provide. As McKinley pointed out, space support currently represents a substantial portion of inflexible, “must-fund” resource commitments of the USAF that do not contribute directly to warfighting operations. The Navy has been comfortable with the Coast Guard from the beginning; it has been useful to the Navy to be able to draw upon Coast Guard capabilities whenever needed and to ignore the Coast Guard when they aren’t. If the Air Force could be convinced that a similar relationship with the Space Guard would be equally useful, the USAF brass might switch from reflexive opposition to support. It is worth noting that the creation of a Space Guard would also well serve the professional interests of many current Air Force and NASA personnel. Some space personnel now in the Air Force might find a separate service a better place in which to pursue their ambitions for a professional life dedicated to space. Just how many would be difficult to determine, but even a small number of intelligent, vocal, and dedicated people can make a difference in politics. Similarly, personnel working on those functions in NASA currently getting shortchanged on resources (and professional advancement opportunities) might also support the Space Guard concept. So, too, might the private space enterprises that find today’s regulatory arrangements inhospitable. These constituencies have incentives to not be very publicly vocal — at least while still employed in the Air Force or NASA, or while still overseen by today’s regulators — but they might nonetheless be able to help sway members of Congress. And not all of the political winds would necessarily blow against the creation of a Space Guard. An ambitious Cabinet secretary heading a department that might become the peacetime home of the USSG could lobby aggressively on behalf of its creation. During the Reagan administration, the Secretary of Commerce and Secretary of Transportation both strongly vied for control of the nascent space regulatory function, even though it was insignificant in terms of budget and personnel. A Space Guard would have a high profile and substantial allure for such a political figure, and a much larger budget than the space regulatory role.

95


***Coercion Net Benefit***

96


Coercion—1NC NASA is a bungling, coercive mess and has been since its inception—only the free market allows for truly cost-benefit analysis Ludlow, 2008 [Lawrence, freelance writer with an MA and BA from University of Toronto, “NASA, the Aerospace Welfare Queen”, Strike the Root, April 30, http://www.strike-the-root.com/81/ludlow/ludlow2.html]The Original Sub-Prime Mortgage Scam In contrast to desirable market-based companies, NASA's value to taxpayers compares poorly with even the casualties of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. After all, who wouldn't be happy to pay money to shut down NASA'if only to prevent another round of orbiting money-pits from being launched into oblivion? For example, the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs were obscenely wasteful. Nearly all of the spacecraft used in these missions (everything but the manned capsules) ended up as waste at the end of each trip'either burned up in the atmosphere, sunk beneath the waves, or floating as debris in space. Even the capsules were not re-used; instead, they are displayed at the tax-subsidized Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum , where they continue to drain taxpayers' wallets to this very day. Heck, too bad Nero and Caligula never had a chance to take lessons from astronauts John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin about how to ride on the backs of taxpayers. Even the obscenely wasteful food orgies and burning tenements of Rome might pale in comparison to the extra-stratospheric waste of nasty old NASA. How long would even the most soft-headed parent continue to provide a son or daughter with a string of new automobiles if they were driven off a cliff each time they were taken out for a spin? In contrast to NASA, privately financed aerospace engineer Burt Rutan developed energy efficient aircraft and spacecraft. In June 2004, his SpaceShipOne was the first privately built craft to reach space. In so doing, he reused more than 80% of the vehicle hardware and did not cost taxpayers a dime. Along with his investors, he plans to commercialize space flight. Even more important, he eliminated coercion and the entitlement mentality of government programs from the concept of space exploration. Lost in Space NASA's space missions burn tax dollars faster than the IRS can pluck them from our wallets. But as quickly as our dollars disappear, so do the spacecraft. Remember the Mars Observer? It was lost in 1993. And this was followed by the Mars Climate Orbiter (1999) and the Mars Polar Lander (1999). And what about the two Deep Space probes also lost in 1999 or the infrared telescope lost in that year as well? Just as sobering, the Hubble telescope yields its own brand of budget madness. After an original total cost estimate of $400 million, the construction bill alone came to $2.5 billion. The cumulative cost ranges between $4.5 and $6 billion. Similarly, Time reported (Feb. 2003) that the space station was originally slated to cost $14 billion, but the tally reached $35 billion back in 2003. The space station, however, was just an appetizer for the Space Shuttle program. For that program, NASA initially hoodwinked us with a low-ball figure of $5.5 million per launch. Later NASA admitted a cost of $450 million per launch and $1.7 billion for the cost of the shuttle Endeavor alone (only one of the vehicles used). The true cost is much higher. Roger Pielke, Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, claims that the total cost of the program will reach $173 billion by 2010'a cost per flight of $1.3 billion. Since it will cost taxpayers more than 200 times the original estimate, the Space Shuttle program makes Operation Iraqi Freedom look like a significant 'if bloodier' bargain. After all, unless you factor in the carnage and future blowback terrorism caused by the war in Iraq , it has cost only 45 times as much as the original 'cakewalk' estimates of The Great Decider. But Roger Pielke's estimate for the Space Shuttle program may be too pessimistic. He assumed that NASA will continue to find human guinea pigs reckless enough to board the shuttles. After all, they fall apart so regularly that newspaper headline writers are forever seeking new ways to say 'Astronauts to Repair Shuttle.' With each foray, there is the implicit threat that debris from a disintegrating craft will rain down upon Earth-bound civilians. When will the Department of Homeland Security be asked to protect us from NASA? 'And All I Got Was This Dumb T-Shirt In contrast to privately funded scientific efforts such as Edison's (electricity), Bayer's (aspirin), or Gutenberg's (printing), has NASA discovered anything that justifies the fabulous expense? According to Wesley Ward, chief space geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey (Feb. 2003): 'The international space station, like the shuttle, is an instrument in search of a purpose . . . . (We) are doing a variety of piddley experiments with little larger application to anything.' NASA Chief Administrator Michael Griffin concurs. He recently suggested that the decision to develop the space shuttle and International Space Station was a mistake: 'It is now commonly accepted that (it) was not the right path. We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can.' He also added that 'the shuttle is fundamentally flawed.' James Van Allen, considered the father of nuclear physics in space (remember the Van Allen radiation belts?), has been a long-term critic of the space shuttle. To the Associated Press, he described the program as '. . . too expensive and dangerous . . . It's a vastly difficult effort with almost no significant purpose.' Taxpayers also should consider this: how were they possibly being served when astronauts on the space shuttle Discovery carried a souvenir T-shirt into space as a favor for the school children of Golden Hill Elementary School in Haverhill, Massachusetts (Feb. 2007)? At a cost of $1.3 billion per shuttle launch, surely that T-shirt was the most overpriced in the history of informal apparel. The political payload on shuttle trips has included Luke Skywalker's light saber, American flags, a teddy bear, and other cheesy memorabilia'sometimes counted by the dozen! Instead of being ashamed, NASA is proud of this imperial waste. It even hosts a web page called Items Taken into Space. Just think: average citizens will go to jail for refusing to subsidize this nonsense. As examples of in-your-face waste and insensitivity, these outrages are worthy of Marie Antoinette before she lost her head in the French Revolution. Why are no heads rolling at NASA? Of course, NASA's supporters claim that we enjoy countless benefits from the space program. Some are mythical, and most have no application beyond outer space; All of them , however, fail to answer the following questions: (1) at what cost? and (2) instead of what? In other words, they do not tell us what Americans could have achieved with

97


this great pile of cash if NASA had not incinerated it without leaving as much as a toasted marshmallow. The problem is that NASA has failed to meet the only test that matters among people who do not use loaded guns to enforce a decision: the market test. Only when buyers and sellers engage in peaceful, voluntary exchange can products and services be judged as successes or failures. Only then are they subject to a true cost-benefit analysis instead of the arbitrary judgment of self-interested bureaucrats, which is the trademark of all socialist ventures such as NASA's.

The denial of individual liberty is the most horrific atrocity possible: living without liberty destroys value to life and is comparable to life in Nazi Germany. Rand 1961 (The Nature of Government,” The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, founder of objectivism, 1961, Dutton Signet)

A society that robs an individual of the product of his effort, or enslaves him, or attempts to limit the freedom of his mind, or compels him to act against his own rational judgment-a society that sets up a conflict between its edicts and the requirements of man’s nature—is not, strictly speaking, a society, but a mob held together by institutionalized gang-rule. Such a society destroys all the values of human coexistence, has no possible justification and represents, not a source of benefits, but the deadliest threat to man’s survival. Life on a desert island is safer than and incomparably preferable to existence in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. If men are to live together in a peaceful, productive, rational society and deal with one another to mutual benefit, they must accept the basic social principle without which no moral or civilized society is possible: the principle of individual rights. To recognize individual rights means to recognize and accept the conditions required by man’s nature for his proper survival.

Coercion—Link-NASA NASA fails—only private industry can avoid the arbitrary demands of a government agency and foster the creativity necessary to solve ambitious projects like the affGarmong, 2004 [Robert, Ph.D. in philosophy, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004, “Privatize the Space Program,” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7993&news_iv_ctrl=1021]Phase out government involvement in space exploration, and the free market will work to produce whatever there is demand for. After years of declining budgets, public apathy, and failed missions, NASA has gotten a big boost from the Bush Administration's recent promises of extravagant missions to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. No one knows what it would cost, but a similar idea in 1989 was estimated to cost up to $500 billion. Rather than lavishing money on new missions of dubious value, President Bush should consider a truly radical solution for America's moribund space program: privatize it. There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet by placing the space program under governmental funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals. The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors--which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments--which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget, overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well. Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them--but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf. There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development. Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space. Phase out government involvement in space exploration, and the free market will work to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft, both military and civilian. Develop a system of property rights to any stellar body reached and exploited by an American company, and profit-minded business will have the incentive to make it happen. We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making steps--and freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry with real and direct benefits, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. Extending man's reach into space is not, as some have claimed, our "destiny." Standing between us and the stars are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. But first, we must make a fundamental choice: will America continue to hold its best engineering minds captive to politics, or will we set them free?

98


Coercion—Link-NASA Only market competition allows freedom—NASA projects are inherently coercive and tainted by inane bureaucracy. Orvetti, 2009 [Peter, political blogger, past editorial writer for the Cato Institute, served as Deputy Director of Communications for the Libertarian Party in the lead-up to the 2000 party convention, and has published commentaries in several major newspapers, “Space for the Free Market,” 7-20, http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=142]

Forty years ago today, in one of the milestones of human history, two Americans stepped out onto the surface of another world. It was a triumphal moment for human genius, and the appearance of the moon in the sky each night since July 20, 1969, reminds us just what we are capable of achieving. The success of Apollo 11 gave rise to giddy hopes of permanent space colonies and interplanetary travel by the end of the 20th century. But since then, fewer than 500 humans have entered space. On July 20, 2009, 13 people are aboard the still-incomplete International Space Station. Seven of them arrived last week on NASA’s space shuttle Endeavour. The shuttle, a clunky vehicle largely unchanged from its 1970s design, was originally intended to be a temporary technology, to be used no more than a couple dozen times. The current mission is its 125th. No one has stood on the moon since December 14, 1972. As Carl Sagan said, "None of us has gone anywhere since the glory days of Apollo except into low earth orbit -- like a toddler who takes a few tentative steps outward and then, breathless, retreats to the safety of his mother's skirts." Part of the reason is that, as Sagan also noted, the Apollo program was about Cold War geopolitics, not science. After Apollo 11 provided the desired propaganda boost, government interest and funding began to dry up. Air travel was common a quarter-century after the Wright Brothers’ 1903 mission at Kitty Hawk, and planes traversed the Atlantic regularly just a decade after Charles Lindbergh’s 1927 flight. But nearly a half-century after Alan Shepard became the first American in space, commercial voyages there are expensive and rare. "Why are no regularly scheduled commercial spaceflights available?" asks NASA veteran Ed Hudgins. "Because no government agency that runs with the efficiency of the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service will ever realize the dream of commercially viable orbiting stations or moon bases." The astronauts aboard the space station today are no less brave and no less talented than Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, but they and those who would join them in the next phase of human space exploration are hampered by bureaucracy. Competition can set them free. For all the storybook lessons of Columbus and Magellan setting sail to find "new worlds" for their government sponsors, the primary motivation for exploration has always been profit. Hudgins has noted that early attempts to get mankind off the ground were motivated by money. "The Wright brothers acted as private individuals, pursuing their own vision and using their own money," he wrote. "Lindbergh was trying to win the privately offered $25,000 Orteig Prize. Much of early civil aviation was funded privately." Even the first government aviation "funding" was in the form of a prize to a private inventor. After Apollo 11, a private company, American Rocket, offered to sell launch services to NASA and to private businesses. But NASA "planned to monopolize government payloads on the shuttle and subsidize launches of private cargo as well," according to Hudgins. NASA turned down American Rocket, and adopted a new role as a galactic trucking service. In the 1980s, as NASA struggled to build a space station, Houston-based Space Industries offered to do the job for a maximum of $750 million, promising a "mini-station" for government and private use. Though this mini-station would have helped NASA build its own larger space station, NASA feared competition might lead to funding cuts and turned down the offer. The NASA space station was never built. But things are beginning to change. Another important space anniversary will come this fall. Five years ago this October, SpaceShipOne, the first entirely privately funded space vehicle, took off beyond the earth’s atmosphere. Space enthusiast Richard Branson was there watching that day, and set up a company called Virgin Galactic to develop a suborbital spacecraft that can carry six passengers. While Virgin Galactic intends to first cater to wealthy space tourists, the company also has hopes of supplanting NASA’s role in launching scientific and commercial satellites into orbital space. Virgin Galactic is not alone in the growing "NewSpace" industry. Private firms like Orbital Sciences and Space Exploration Technologies are signing lucrative rocket contracts, and Spaceport America is under construction in New Mexico. These private efforts, and growing competition, will lower the cost of going into space. Just as automobiles and airline tickets are no longer only available to the wealthy, a free market in space could make exploration, commercial travel, and even settlements an inexpensive reality.

Even if NASA was good at one point, it’s become a tool of the Welfare Machine with no plan for the future—only commercial spaceflight solves Hacker,1998 [Johannes M., aerospace engineer specializing in space flight operations, worked for four years as a space station flight controller at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. He is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute, “Nasa's Flight From Reason,” 10-29, http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5318&news_iv_ctrl=1021] CM

Why has America's space program fallen from moon shots to malaise? Because NASA has gone from an organization ruled by the concerns of science and engineering to one dominated by the concerns of politics. The liberals began complaining: "If we can land a man on the moon, why can't we feed the hungry, care for the elderly, etc.?" Moreover, the successes of NASA undermined the liberals' philosophic message. How were they to convince Americans that the individual is a helpless victim, requiring constant nurturing by the government, when the nightly news showed man walking on the moon? The astronauts had to be brought down from the moon--figuratively and literally--to serve the agenda of the Great Society. NASA gradually became just another cog in the welfare-state machinery. The manned space program has now been transformed into what is essentially a foreign-aid program. The Vehicle Assembly Building at Cape Kennedy is so massive that the United Nations building could fit through any one of its four hangar doors onto its eight-acre shop floor. NASA constructed it to enable America to go into space--alone. But NASA's flagship project today is the International Space Station. Its original name was "Space Station Freedom," but the Clinton administration, unwilling to offend any of its fifteen "partner-nations," has steadfastly refused to rename it. Except that it added the adjective "International" to destroy any notion that this is an America-led project. (Even an innocuous, temporary moniker given by NASA engineers, "Alpha," was scrapped because the Russians chafed at a name that hinted at America's pride at being first at anything.) In keeping with the subordination of engineering to politics, the American and Russian space programs are now joined at the hip. Later this year the first piece of the International Space Station will be launched by the Russians. They have been given critical responsibility for the station's attitude control and propulsion, making the Russians indispensable. Should they renege on their end, as they have repeatedly threatened to do unless given ever-more U.S. tax dollars, the entire program will be jeopardized. What was the rationale for giving Russia such a vital role in the space station program? It was

99


supposed to be a "gesture of friendship" toward a former enemy to enhance "global harmony." It also served the political purpose of sending welfare to the Russian economy--which is collapsing anyway. It was also a subtle bribe to Russia, to keep it from arming India--which has since gone nuclear anyway. NASA's flight rules list the three worst possible emergencies on a spacecraft: an onboard fire, an internal hazardous chemical leak and a cabin depressurization. During last year's joint Shuttle-Mir venture, American astronauts had to face all three. This was a result of the suspension of NASA's safety standards--in the name of "social cooperation" with the Russians. John Glenn may be the last hero ever to carry NASA's banner into space. It is sad to note--as another sign of NASA's decline--that when Glenn was originally selected to go into space, it was to advance science and engineering and because he was a brilliant test pilot. Today, his selection is based on political patronage. His voyage may once again spark public interest, but it will be NASA's swan song. After Glenn's short flight, all NASA has left is the space station. Once it is built, the agency has no serious plans for further exploration. As long as NASA remains a government entity, it will continue to deteriorate. The only hope lies in commercial, non-political sponsorship--which is, in fact, quietly growing (and is how space exploration should have been launched from the start). Whoever does go back to the moon will be led not by politicians and bureaucrats, but by visionaries and entrepreneurs. I just hope I'm around to work on such a mission.

Coercion—Link-Spending Government expenditure for space missions impedes on your economic liberty—market innovation key to solveMurphy, 2005 [Robert, adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute, professor of economics at Hillsdale College, “A Free Market in Space,” Volume 26, Number 1, Jan, http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=525]

Whenever the government creates some public work, everyone can see the obvious benefits. For example, everyone can appreciate the fact that we put a US flag on the moon, and listened as Neil Armstrong apparently flubbed his memorized line. Or to use a more mundane example, everyone can see a beautiful new sports stadium financed (in part) by tax dollars. What people can’t see are the thousands of other goods and services that now won’t be enjoyed, because the scarce resources necessary for their production were devoted to the government project. Politicians may break moral laws, but they can’t evade economic ones: If they send a man to the moon (or build a new stadium), consumers necessarily must curtail their enjoyments of other goods. Thus the question becomes: Was the Apollo program (or new stadium) sufficiently valued by consumers to outweigh its opportunity cost (i.e., the value consumers place on the goods that now cannot be produced)? At first glance, this seems to be a difficult question to answer. After all, how can we possibly compare the benefits of the Apollo program with, say, the benefits of the additional shoes, diapers, automobiles, research on cancer, etc. that could have been alternatively produced? The short answer is, we can’t. This is just a specific example of the more general principle elaborated by Ludwig von Mises: the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Even if a central planning board were truly benevolent, and even if it had access to all of the technical conditions (such as resource supplies and technological recipes) of the economy, the planners would be at a loss to deploy the scarce resources in an efficient way. There would be no way to determine whether the chosen output goals were good ones, or whether an alternative plan could have provided the subjects with a better outcome. The above analysis might puzzle the reader. Yes, it is certainly difficult in practice to tell whether the Apollo program (or any other government project) is worth its cost, but isn’t that true of any undertaking? Why should this be a unique drawback for government endeavors? The crucial difference is that private projects are subject to the profit and loss test. The owner of a private firm must pay market prices for all of his or her scarce resources. If the consumers do not then voluntarily spend enough money on the final product or service to recoup these expenditures, this is the market’s signal that the resources are more urgently needed in other lines (according to the consumers). It can never be the case that all entrepreneurs find a particular resource "too expensive" to use; if no entrepreneurs were buying it, then the price of this resource would fall until some did. For example, it would be unprofitable—"wasteful"—to use gold in the construction of bridges; the extra money motorists would pay to drive across a golden bridge would not cover the additional expense. Yet it is profitable to use gold in the construction of necklaces or rings. Consumers are willing to pay enough for golden necklaces (versus silver or copper ones) that it makes it worthwhile for jewelers to buy gold for this purpose. Hence, the high price of gold is (among other things) a signal to engineers not to use gold in building bridges, because consumers would rather the scarce metal be used in jewelry. The principle is the same when it comes to space travel. The reason private entrepreneurs would never have financed the moon program in the 1960s is that the financial returns from such a project wouldn’t come close to covering the expenses. Yet this is just the market’s way to tell these entrepreneurs that the computers, scientists’ labor, fuel, etc. would be better devoted to other ends. By seizing tax dollars and financing the Apollo program, President Kennedy et al. simply forced Americans to forgo the thousands of products that, according to their own spending decisions, they would have preferred to the space adventures. Is this perspective crude materialism? Surely, there are all sorts of things that are not profitable in the narrow sense, and yet are of tremendous importance to humanity. Consequently, are we not in need of noble politicians acting in the public interest? Well, consider the $10 million dollar X Prize. This was a gift designed to promote space exploration. The same is true of Bigelow’s $50 million prize. The private sector’s promotion of abstract knowledge (as opposed to practical, marketable discoveries) is nowhere better demonstrated than in the Clay Mathematics Institute’s million dollar awards for the solution to any of seven important problems. Historically, there were many rich patrons of the arts and science; didn’t the Vatican pay Michelangelo not only to create beautiful art but also to increase donations? Indeed, it is a common misconception that in the free market, "the highest bidder" determines things. No, in a free market, the owner determines the use of a piece of property. When a man lets his teenage son take the car for the night, is he renting it to the highest bidder? Of course not. A system of property rights, and the freely floating prices that accompany the exchange of these rights, is necessary to ensure the best possible use of resources. This is true in something as mundane as car production, or something as exotic as trips to Mars. The private sector can finance safe and efficient space exploration, but it will only do so in projects where the benefits (including donations from enthusiasts) truly outweigh the costs. The success of SpaceShipOne illustrates these facts. Now that the public has seen the potential of private space flight, perhaps it will become politically possible to axe NASA and return its budget to the private sector. .FM

100


Coercion—Link-Government Action Each and every action committed by the government is one of coercion—Nothing is voluntary and everything is enforced with a gun.Browne ‘95 [Harry, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, “Why Government Doesn't Work,” p.10-11]What separates government from the rest of society isn’t its size, its disregard for profit, its foresight, or its scope. The distinctive feature of government is coercion — the use of force and the threat of force to win obedience. This is how government differs from every other agency in society. The others persuade; government compels. When someone demands that government help flood victims, he is saying he wants to force people to pay for flood relief. Otherwise, he’d be happy to have the Red Cross and its supporters handle everything. When someone wants government to limit the price of a product, he is asking to use force to prevent people from paying more for something they want. Otherwise, he would simply urge people not to patronize those he thinks are charging too much. When Congress passes a bill mandating “family leave,” it forces every company to provide time off for family problems — even if its employees want the employer to use payroll money for some other benefit. Otherwise, employers and employees would be free to decide what works best in each situation. Nothing involving government is voluntary — as it would be when a private company does something. One way or another, there is compulsion in every government activity: The government forces someone to pay for something; The government forces someone to do something; or The government forcibly prevents someone from doing something. There is no other reason to involve government. And by “force” I mean the real thing — the kind that hurts people. As Long as You Comply . . . In some government agencies, such as the police and prisons, the role of coercion is obvious. But it is at work in every government program — although a program’s supporters rarely acknowledge it. What Is Government? 11 If this seems like too sweeping a statement, it may be that you’ve never tried to resist a government program. If you did, you’d have learned very quickly that the program is enforced by a gun. The easiest way to spot the gun is to imagine what would happen if you decided to ignore the government’s “request.”

Coercion—Link-Science Control 101


Government agencies censor scientists, restricting scientific inquiry—only a free exchange of ideas allows for effective communicationResnik 8 [David, bioethicist with an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and J.D. from Concord University School of Law. He received his B.A. in philosophy from Davidson College, Professor of Medical Humanities at the Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University, “Scientific Autonomy and Public Oversight”, PubMed Journals, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748413/] CMSince 2001, administrators at United States government science agencies have censored or attempted to govern scientists on numerous occasions (Mooney 2005). For example, in June 2003, administrators at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to change a report on the environment. The administrators tried to remove data pertaining to global temperatures for the last 1,000 years, eliminate any references to humanity’s role in climate change, and delete claims that global warming can have dire consequences on human health and the environment. The administrators also attempted to soften the impact of the report by inserting qualifiers, such as “might” and “may,” in various places (Union of Concerned Scientists 2004). In the January 2006, officials at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tried to prevent NASA scientist James Hansen and from communicating with the public concerning global climate change. Hansen also charged that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) had also censored scientists who had attempted to discuss global climate change with the public. In February 2006, a spokesman for NASA, George Deutshe, allegedly rewrote comments by NASA scientists to downplay the seriousness of global climate change (Eilperin 2006). These efforts to censor government scientists were not very successful, since the scientists managed to get their message across concerning global climate change. Even so, attempts at censorship are a serious threat to scientific autonomy because they interfere with freedom of expression, and, ultimately, freedom of thought and creativity. Censorship is a restriction on the content of scientific communication. Rather than engaging in censorship, government agencies should establish rules and policies for public communications. For example, most agencies require scientists to include a disclaimer that they do not represent the views of the agency or the United States government. Most agencies also have rules pertaining to submitting articles for publication, communicating with the media, and using one’s institutional affiliation. Censorship is an unjustified departure from these policies. To be fair, one should point out that there are important differences between controlling a government scientist’s communications with the public, and the type of censorship that occurred in the Soviet Union. The scientists working at NASA and the NOAA did not face political persecution or imprisonment. They were still at liberty to express their views, if they were willing to risk loss of employment. When they agreed to work for the government, the scientists also agreed to abide by the regulations and policies set by the government, including rules relating to communications with the public. One might argue, therefore, that government scientists do not and should not enjoy the type of freedom that academic scientists enjoy. Government scientists are similar, in some ways, to scientists who work for industry, because they may face restrictions stemming from their employment contracts.[4] While I agree that government scientists should abide by rules for communications with the public and that working for the government is different from working at a university, this does not justify the type of censorship of scientists that has been practiced by some administrators working for the George W. Bush Administration. Government scientists are not bureaucrats or hired guns: they are independent researchers who are part of the research community. They should be able to interact with other scientists on equal terms and express their views in public debates about controversial issues involving science and public policy. Clearly, government agencies also have the right to express their own opinions and send a unified message. When government scientists write or speak about issues, they should be careful to state that their opinions do not represent those of the agency of which they work, or of the United States government. If an agency disagrees with the opinions expressed by one of its scientists, then the agency is free to convey its divergent views through publications, press releases, and other forms of communication.

A government role in science is inherently coercive—the goals of scientists and their state-sanctioned taskmasters are at oddsLapuente, 2008 [Victor, “Political Regimes, Bureaucracy, and Scientific Productivity,” Politics & Policy, Vol. 36 No. 6, professor at University of Gothenburg, http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/5471/1/political_remo_PAP_2008.pdf]

In popular accounts of science, scientists are often portrayed as selfless individuals, working for humankind. Earlier sociological explanations argued that extrinsic rewards, such as position and money, play a minor role in science (Hagstrom 1965, 19). Here, however, we assume that scientists are self-interested.2 For simplicity, we assume that position, money, and direct rewards are instrumental goods even for selfless actors, which allows us to treat scientists as agents of the government (here the principal). The article, thus, relies on PAT and takes a contractual approach toward explaining public science organizations and hierarchies.3 A growing strand of literature in science policy (see e.g., Braun 1993; Caswill 1998; Guston 1996; Morris 2003; Van der Meulen 1998) has adopted thePATperspective in the following way: a government requests the scientists to perform certain tasks that the principal is not able to perform directly (Guston 1996, 230, our emphasis). The key question is “how do nonscientists get scientists to do what we all, as citizens, have decided?” (229), and the key variable is the information asymmetry between the two main actors. We depart from this literature in three different ways. First, we focus on the simplest model—with the government as the principal and the scientists as the agents—ignoring intermediate actors.4 In doing so, we are making a rough simplification, but our aim is to analyze the interplay between the two essential actors in science: those who ultimately manage science policy and those who ultimately do science. Second, we use a one-shot game without repetition.5 Third, our model focuses on the possibility of principal’s misbehavior. The problem traditionally addressed by PAT is the design of a contract to limit the agent’s misconduct—the well-known issues of moral hazard and adverse selection (Pratt and Zeckhauser 1985). The agent is seen as the main source of problems, while the problems created by principals, such as the possibility of not rewarding the agent properly, have been overlooked. Yet principals’ misconduct must also be taken into account, especially in the public realm where the principal (e.g., government) has a political nature and is thus more powerful than the standard private-sector principal (e.g., manager). As Moe (1990) has emphasized, PATs—primarily developed for understanding Lapuente/Fernández-Carro Political Regimes and Scientific Productivity 1009 firms—assume the enforcement of contracts by a third party, but problems may arise when one of the parties happens to be that third party at the same time (i.e., the government). Governments can renege on their pacts by, for example, unilaterally changing the terms of those pacts through new ad hoc regulations. PAT models applied to politics often overlook the full consequences of the exercise of “public authority” (Moe 1990) or “political power” (Moe 2005). Governments have extraordinary and, to a certain extent, unpredictable powers: governments at time t cannot bind those at time t + 1, and the incentives to renege are often substantial (Moe 1990, 220). Once agreements are struck, there is no external enforcement mechanism to police them when one of the parties is the government. Following Moe (1990, 213), the goal of our theory is to include this “neglected side of the story” of PAT in the analysis of science policy

Coercion—Link-Science Control Citizens are being coerced by the government into dying for scienceNandy, 1988 [Ashis, 1988, Science, Hegemony & Violence: A Requiem for Modernity, former Senior Fellow and Director of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Chairperson of the Committee for Cultural Choices and Global Futures in New Delhi, appeared on the list of the Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll of the Foreign Policy magazine member of the Executive Councils of the World Futures Studies Federation, the Commonwealth Human

102

http://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/10016/5471/1/political_remo_PAP_2008.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2748413/


Rights Initiative, the International Network for Cultural Alternatives to Development, and the People's Union for Civil Liberties http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/hegemony-nandy.pdf]

The thinking person cannot but notice that since the Second World War, two new reasons of state have been added to the traditional one of national security. These are science and development. In the name of science and development one can today demand enormous sacrifices from, and inflict immense sufferings on, the ordinary citizen. That these are often willingly borne by the citizen is itself a part of the syndrome; for this willingness is an extension of the problem which national security has posed over the centuries. Defying protests by (and to the mortification of) pacifists and anti-militarists, a significant proportion of ordinary citizens in virtually every country have consistently and willingly died for king and country. There are already signs that at least as large a proportion of citizens is equally willing to lay down their lives heroically for the sake of science and development . In 1985, one Japanese doctor praised the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the indirect benefits they have brought to Japan. In an election held soon after the gas tragedy in 1984, the affected citizenry of Bhopal returned the same regime to power that shared the responsibility for the disaster. Likewise, demands for new steel mills and large dams often come from the very regions and sectors in the third world which are most likely to be the first victims of industrialization. What are the sources of such commitment to the development of science, and the science of development? Can one identify and challenge the philosophical and ideological framework within which the commitment is located? Can one not go beyond shedding tears copiously over the misuse of modern science by wicked politicians, militarists and multinational corporations, and scrutinize the popular culture and philosophy of modern science? May the sources of violence not lie partly in the nature of science itself? Is there something in modern science itself which makes it a human enterprise particularly open to co-optation by the powerful and the wealthy?

Coercion—Impact-War Coercive societies cause violence – they polarize social forces, reduce multi-dimensional fields, de-emphasize peaceful exchange, and make citizens pay in blood and taxes.Rummel 85 (R. J., Professor Emeritus in the Political Science Department at the University of Hawaii, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Libertarian Propositions on Violence within and between Nations: A Test against Published Research Results, September 1985, Volume 29 Number 3 - http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/173944.pdf, SP)

The basic principle is that socioeconomic and political freedom, the hallmark of a libertarian society, minimizes violence. As the theoretical understanding of this has been developed elsewhere (Rummel, 1975- 1981, 1983a, 1984),' I need only point out that such a society is a multi- dimensional field of diverse social forces-some intersecting, some opposing, some overlapping. The net effect is to cross-pressure interests, to cross-cut status and classes, and thus inhibit the growth of societywide violence. As a society becomes more authoritarian or coercive, however, the spontaneity of a social field

103

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/173944.pdf


declines, social forces become polarized, the multidimensionality of interests is reduced. Interests and issues begin to revolve around a single dimension: one's political power. The dividing line between the "ins" and "outs" becomes a conflict front across society along which extreme violence can occur. At this theoretical level, then, the key ideas are that of a social field, cross-pressures, and polarization. At a less abstract level, there are the explanations common to liberal scholars: the aggregating and compromising, and therefore conflict- reducing, effects of competitive party systems; the institutionalization of societywide conflict resolution through competitive politics and the ballot ("the ballot replaces the bullet"); the formalization and regulation of conflict and violence (e.g., labor-management collective bargaining laws); the democratic emphasis on exchange instead of authority and coercion; the unwillingness of democratic majorities to pay in blood and taxes for the foreign adventures of a political elite.

Coercion—Impact-Linear Any violation of freedom, regardless of magnitude, must be emphatically rejected—liberty is seldom lost at once.Petro, 1974 [Sylvester, Professor of Law at NYU, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0783.html]

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway, I believe in only one thing: liberty. And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume’s observation: It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value, and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.

The individual can make a difference: We must reject coercion in every instanceDr. Ruwart, 93 (Dr. Mary J. Ruwart, Senior Scientist at a major pharmaceutical firm and a former Assistant Professor of Surgery at St. Louis University Medical School, Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle, p.281-282, http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/ruwart_all.html)

104


If you've read this far, you are undoubtedly interested in seeing at least some aspects of non-aggression implemented. Several ideas may seem more relevant to you than others. If you are wondering whether a lone individual like yourself can make a difference, please be assured that you can. Even the smallest contribution can be pivotal. My favorite story illustrating this point is about a blacksmith who failed to put the final nail in a horse's shoe. For lack of a nail, the horse lost his shoe and went lame. The rider, who was carrying critical news to his king, had to continue on foot. As a result, he reached his sovereign too late. Without this important information, the king lost the battle he was fighting and the kingdom fell to invaders. The humble blacksmith was pivotal to the safety of the kingdom. Never doubt that your contribution is just as important. Remember that the family and friends who talk with you about the win-win world possible through non-aggression will in turn talk to others, who will share the good news. Like a chain reaction, your message of hope will spread throughout our country and the world, bearing fruit in the most unexpected ways. If you do nothing more than extol the virtues of non-aggression to those around you, you will have done much toward manifesting it! Of course, you needn't stop there. The many groups cited above would welcome your participation. Are there any that excite you? Would you like to join a political campaign or speak on college campuses? Do you perceive a need for other strategies that you could initiate on you own or with others? Can you implement non-aggressive solutions in the midst of aggression- through- government, much like Guy Polheus and Kimi Gray did (Chapter 11: Springing the Poverty Trap)? All these things and more are needed to help others recognize that non-aggression is in everybody's best self-interest. We each have a part to play, a gift to the world that will one day be reflected back to us as a better world. Our world is a joint creation. We all have our own power and affect those around us profoundly. Each of us has our own wisdom to identify the piece of the puzzle that we can lay in the mosaic. Every piece is needed to construct the whole; never doubt that what you can do, however small it may seem to you, is essential. I urge you to embrace whatever aspect of non-aggression seems most valuable to you and appropriate to your unique talents. Whether you work behind the scenes or in the limelight, rest assured that the world will take notice. Whatever way you feel moved to participate is a gift you give to yourself and others. Let me be the first to thank you for making the world a better place!

Coercion—Impact-Scientific Control Bad Government control of science is dangerous and deadly—Columbia disaster provesGarmong, 2004 [Robert, Ph.D. in philosophy, writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004, “Privatize the Space Program,” http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7993&news_iv_ctrl=1021]

There is reason to believe that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam. It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development.

105


Coercion—Impact-Atrocities Government coercion is responsible for the worst atrocities in history – every coercive policy inches the U.S. closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union and Nazi GermanyBrowne, 95 (Harry, Former Libertarian Party candidate for President and Director of Public Policy for the DownsizeDC.org, Why Government Doesn’t Work, p.66-67, JMP)The reformers of the Cambodian revolution claimed to be building a better world. They forced people into reeducation programs to make them better citizens. Then they used force to regulate every aspect of commercial life . Then they forced office workers and intellectuals to give up their jobs and harvest rice, to round out their education. When people resisted having their lives turned upside down, the reformers had to use more and more force. By the time they were done, they had killed a third of the country's population, destroyed the lives of almost everyone still alive, and devastated a nation. It all began with using force for the best of intentions-to create a better world. The Soviet leaders used coercion to provide economic security and to build a "New Man" - a human being who would put his fellow man ahead of himself. At least 10 million people died to help build the New Man and the Workers' Paradise. But human nature never changed-and the workers' lives were always Hell, not Paradise. In the 1930s many Germans gladly traded civil liberties for the economic revival and national pride Adolf Hitler promised them. But like every other grand dream to improve society by force, it ended in a nightmare of devastation and death. Professor R. J. Rummel has calculated that 119 million people have been killed by their own governments in this century. Were these people criminals? No, they were people who simply didn't fit into the New Order-people who preferred their own dreams to those of the reformers. Every time you allow government to use force to make society better, you move another step closer to the nightmares of Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. We've already moved so far that our own government can perform with impunity the outrages described in the preceding chapters. These examples aren't cases of government gone wrong; they are examples of government-period. They are what governments do-just as chasing cats is what dogs do. They are the natural consequence of letting government use force to bring about a drug-free nation, to tax someone else to better your life, to guarantee your economic security, to assure that no one can mistreat you or hurt your feelings, and to cover up the damage of all the failed government programs that came before.

The impact is linear – the stronger the government becomes, the more liberty is lostBovard, 95 (James, journalist for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Newsweek, Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, p.333-334, JMP)Liberty by itself will not create an ideal society. As Friedrich Hayek observed, "The results of freedom must depend on the values which free individuals pursue." Unfortunately, the more powerful government has become, the more likely the people's values are to be debased. Current tax and welfare policy maximizes the rewards for dependency and the penalties for self-reliance. There is a great deal that people can do to help themselves and to help their neighbors and those in need. But the more powerful government has become, the more people devote their attention to Washington rather than to their own efforts. John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859: the most cogent reason for restricting the interference of government is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power. Every function superadded to those already exercised by

106


the government causes its influence over hopes and fears to be more widely diffused, and converts, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into hangers-on of the government, or of some party which aims at becoming the government . 6 We have paid dearly for idealizing the state. There is no virtue in denying the law of gravity, and there should be no virtue in denying the limitations of government. Good intentions are no excuse for perpetual failure and growing oppression. The more we glorify government, the more liberties we will lose. Freedom is largely a choice between allowing people to follow their own interests or forcing them to follow the interests of bureaucrats, politicians, and campaign contributors. This is the soul of the debate between liberty and pseudopaternalism, between letting people build their own lives and forcing them to build their lives as politicians dictate.

Coercion—Impact-Value to Life There is no value to life in the affirmative’s framework—the aff reduces individuals to means to an endHayek, 60 (F.A., Nobel Prize winner for Economics, The Constitution of Liberty, 1960, p.20, JMP)By “coercion” we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable

either to use his own intelligence or knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs. Coercion is evil precisely because it thus eliminates an individual as a thinking and valuing person and makes him a bare tool in the achievement of the ends of another . Free action, in which a person pursues his own aims by the means indicated by his own knowledge, must be based on data which cannot be shaped at will by another. It presupposes the existence of a known sphere in which the circumstances cannot be so shaped by another person as to leave one only that choice prescribed by the other.

107


Coercion—Impact-D-Rule Coercion is not justified to even decrease the net violation of rights—so says the Declaration of Independence Pilon, 1 (Roger, Vice President for Legal Affairs and Director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, “Two Kinds of Rights,” 12-6-2001, www.cato.org/current/terrorism/pubs/pilon-011206.html, JMP)As the Declaration of Independence says, the main business of government is to secure rights, but legitimate government can't do it by any means. It can't violate rights in the name of securing them. That frames the issue. Between those boundaries—and given a world of uncertainty—the devil is in the details. Governments too restrained leave rights exposed. By contrast, societies that trade liberty for security, as Ben Franklin noted, end often with neither.

108


Coercion—Impact-Turns Case Libertarianism is the only way to solve the plan – efficiency and effectiveness due to enhanced caution, more innovative activity through competition, and better allocation of resources due to deregulation. Bicksler 9 (James L., Professor in Finance and Economic at Rutgers University at the Rutgers Business School, International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Classical libertarianism: The economic perspectives of Milton Friedman including his likely views on the ‘proper’ role of government in the subprime mortgage debacle, 2009, Volume 6 Issue 1 - http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5252cd7e-08a6-444c-a768-64b61efc7de3%40sessionmgr15&vid=4&hid=18, SP)

Friedman describes the essence of libertarianism as ‘ free private property capitalism ’ . With regard to private property, Friedrich A. Hayek is of the opinion that ‘ private property ’ is the most important guarantee of freedom. Further, Milton Friedman has stated, ‘ you can ’ t have a free society without private property ’ . Translated, Friedman ’ s libertarian framework is that economic and political freedoms are best and, perhaps, can only be achieved via institutions and markets that maximise the welfare of each individual party to the transaction, as judged by each individual party to the transaction and the transaction taking place in competitive markets where there is individual ownership of property rights. Note that much of the rationale for emphasising individual decision making in a private property economy is captured in Milton Friedman ’ s view that ‘ Nobody spends somebody else ’ s resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilised, you have to do it through the means of private property ’ . This means, as Friedman states, that ‘ the organization of the bulk of economic activity through private enterprise operating in a free market promotes economic welfare and political freedom ’ . The primary end results of competitive markets dominated by self-interested individuals are enhanced efficient resource allocation at the level of both the firm and the household, and the enhancement of the real growth of the economy. 16,17 This reasoning goes back to Adam Smith ’ s seminal Wealth of Nations (1776), where Smith argued that the invisible hand of self-interested individuals promoted what was best for society. 18,19 Specifically, Adam Smith stated that ‘ he intends only his own gain, and he is in this as in many other cases led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was not part of his intention ’ . That is, ‘ It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest ’ . Alternatively stated, the essence of all of Milton Friedman ’ s public policy prescriptions was the demonstration via arguments of price theory that if there is an efficient allocation of resources at the firm level, it results in lower market clearing prices in competitive markets and these gains accrue to the benefit of individuals. Further, competitive markets encourage entrepreneurial and innovative activity which results in an expanded opportunity set of choices for consumers which again is a gain for society. This means that, in general, private markets are to be preferred to governmental regulated markets because they have superiority in allocating scarce resources. Certainly, private markets, if they are competitive markets, are to be preferred, without exception, to governmental regulated markets because they have superiority in allocating scarce resources. 22 – 26 Adam Smith ’ s viewpoint of self-interested individuals operating in competitive markets, leading to enhanced resources allocation and societal economic gains differs markedly from the then prevailing mercantilistic structure of the economy. 27 In mercantilism, there is a government / monarchy that focuses on a nation ’ s economic goals, particularly on export-balance of payment goals, and where there is zero focus and emphasis on enhancing opportunities for individuals and on individual self-interest.

109

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=5252cd7e-08a6-444c-a768-64b61efc7de3@sessionmgr15&vid=4&hid=18


AT: CP Links to Coercion The state is coercive but corporations aren’t.Wolf 2 (Martin, chief economics commentator @ The Financial Times, “Countries still rule the world: The notion that corporations wield more power than governments rests on flawed calculations and conceptual confusion” Financial Times; Feb 6, 2002)

Of the largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries. Critics of "corporate globalisation", some of whom protested against the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in New York, rely on this supposed fact to justify their view that governments lie prostrate before unbridled corporate power. Theirs is a paranoid delusion. The calculations on the relative size of corporations on which so many critics of globalisation depend come from the left-of-centre Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.* But they rest on an elementary howler. The authors, Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh, compute the size of corporations by sales but that of national economies by gross domestic product. Yet GDP is a measure of value added, not sales. If one were to compute total sales in a country one would end up with a number far bigger than GDP. One would also be double-, triple- or quadruple-counting. But the flaw in such claims is not just factual but also conceptual, since countries and companies are radically different. A country has coercive control over its people and its territory. Even the weakest state can force millions of people to do things most of them would far rather not do: pay taxes, for example, or do military service. Companies are quite another matter. They are civilian organisations that must win the resources they need in free markets. They rely not on coercion but on competitiveness. Does anybody doubt that the US legal system could break up Microsoft if it wanted to do so? Or that Microsoft would itself disappear if it ceased making products its customers wanted? Even the property rights of companies depend on the coercive power of states. In the 1970s, for example, the strongest oil companies were unable to resist nationalisation of their assets by some weak developing countries. Wrong numbers, incorrect understanding of trends and, above all, a misleading analytical framework - the critics are guilty of all these. But the worst of these is the last. By comparing the ability of companies to grow by satisfying customers, paying employees and rewarding investors with the ability of governments to exert coercive power, they are guilty of, at best, confusion and, at worst, deliberate misrepresentation. Companies are not comparable with states. Even if they were far bigger, they would still not be. Does this mean there is nothing to the critique of corporate power? Not quite. Two points are correct. First, open borders increase the choices open to citizens, particularly to owners of mobile factors of production. This limits the coercive power of states. To critics, this represents an erosion of democracy. To supporters, it represents an increase in individual freedom. Both are correct, in their own terms, though the impact is not of corporations but of markets.

110


AT : Libertarianism Flawed Critics don’t even know what libertarianism is – they conflate everything they dislike into one static concept.Kuznicki 9 (Jason, facilitator of multiple Cato Institute international publishing projects, Research Fellow and Managing Editor at Cato Unbound [an intellectual think tank publication], prior Production Manager at the Congressional Research Service, Ph.D. in history from Johns Hopkins University, Cato Journal, Book review of The Libertarian Illusion: Ideology, Public Policy, and the Assault on the Common Good, Spring/Summer 2009, Volume 29 Issue 2, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0de93721-30a4-4513-87f1-57bf16a8aa5e%40sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=12, SP)

It is daunting to review a book claiming that everything you believe is wrong. Fortunately, William Hudson's The Libertarian Illusion also attacks many things that neither I nor very many other libertarians believe. This gives courage for the rest. Hudson, a professor in the political science department at Providence College, is a communitarian. Were I to judge by his book alone, communitarianism appears to mean support for everything that government planners would like to do, provided only that a democratic majority believes such policies constitute the common good. In his first substantive chapter, Hudson also defends higher taxes to pay for these state-supplied goods and services. This stance is unlikely to endear him to the majority, but it’s refreshingly honest. Hudson also appears to have found a word for anything he disagrees with: "libertarian." He bends it to suit his needs. Thus Grover Norquist, who proposes tax cuts because they will lower government revenue, is a Libertarian. But so too is Art Laffer, who proposes tax cuts because they will raise government revenue. Clearly, for any change in tax rates, at least one of them must be wrong. Yet neither view, if taken in isolation, offers a particularly strong example of Libertarianism. A libertarian would lower taxes not to reach some desired level of government revenue, but because respect for the taxpayer demands it.

111

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0de93721-30a4-4513-87f1-57bf16a8aa5e@sessionmgr13&vid=2&hid=12


1NC T – “Its” A. ‘Its’ is a possessive pronoun showing ownershipGlossary of English Grammar Terms, 2005 (http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html) Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to show possession orownership .EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word disk and shows that it belongs to me.) NASA support of commercial space development is distinct from ‘its own’ space development programsBerger, 11 - Houston Chronicle's space, weather and science reporter. (“NASA still being torn between commercial space and its own rockets,” Houston Chronicle Blog, 2/14,http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/02/nasa-still-being-torn-between-commercial-space-and-its-own-rockets/ The president’s budget for NASA released today (see fact sheet) is similar to the Senate compromise last year, but contains some key differences. Notably the issues remain how much to spend on a heavy lift rocket and launch vehicle, and how much to invest in private-sector initiatives, such as SpaceX, which two months ago became the first commercial entity to launch a spacecraft into orbit and subsequently recover it upon its return to Earth. As has been the case for some time, NASA is being asked to straddle a fence and support both commercial access to low-Earth orbit and build its own fleet of new space vehicles . In this budget environment, however, there’s just not enough money to do both. Under last year’s Senate compromise, for 2012, NASA would spend $400 million to foster private development of commercial crew services to orbit, and $4.05 billion on a launch rocket and crew vehicle.In the President’s proposed budget, NASA would spend $850 million on commercial crew services, but just $2.8 billion on a new NASA rocket and crew vehicle. B. Violation – the plan increases incentives for the commercial development of space – this is distinct from federally owned projects C. Voting issue 1. Allowing for private companies explodes the topic – infinite possible incentives and it allows the aff to provide incentives to other countries and claim cooperation and relations advantages with everyone who has a space program 2. Ground – the core question on the topic is preparing to defend or attack government space programs, we lose the one generic CP option the neg should expect The level of government vs. privatized involvement is the central controversy on this topic and structures the majority of negative groundVedda, 7 - senior policy analyst at the Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space. Policy & Strategy (James, “The Role of Space Development in Globalization,”http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801-chapter10.pdf) Friedman believes that the current system of globalization “has come upon us far faster than our ability to retrain ourselves to see and comprehend it.”16 Certainly this has been the case with space development. As in other societal activities, space-related institutions seek to continue their existence and their traditional priorities despite the fast pace of change in key segments of their environment. Since the end of the Apollo era, for example, U.S. civil space efforts have struggled with questions on the role of government vs. the private sector, made all the more difficult by the fact that the answers are moving targets. Who should finance, build, and operate space infrastructure elements such as launch systems and space stations? To what extent should the government support research projects that have the potential to produce private-sector revenues? In an era of tight federal budgets, should the government shift as much responsibility and expertise as possible to the private sector, or is this a short-sighted strategy that will undermine the nation’s continuing need for large-scale, evolving space capabilities? Can the private sector, at the current stage of technical development, always be counted on to choose better space investments and technical approaches than the government? A significant percentage of the space industry is designed to serve governments, since these constitute much of the customer base in key areas such as space hardware manufacturing and launch services. The relatively small number of competitors and customers in these areas, and the dominance of government customers, yield a space industry that is slower to adapt and innovate than most other high-tech industries. The tendency to protect space technologies as sensitive national assets slows their adoption in the world market and may hinder the competitiveness of nations employing export restrictions and protectionist measures. These circumstances do not bode well for the U.S. space community’s ability to rapidly adapt to the globalized environment.

Privatization Fails – General It is not feasible for private companies to do human space flight because of safety, funds, and public interest.

112

http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801-chapter10.pdf

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2011/01/spacex_sends_a_message_to_budgetcutting_lawmakers_1.html

http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/082.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2011/02/nasa-still-being-torn-between-commercial-space-and-its-own-rockets/

http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html


Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf]

Commercial Human Spaceflight. The FY2011 budget in effect “doubles down” on the Bush administration’s pursuit of commercial human space flight options. Unlike its predecessor, which pursued two paths to maintain and improve the national capability to place humans in orbit, the Obama administration proposes taking a single path, and a risky one at that. NASA seems to assume that buying human spaceflight services will lead to lower prices. Typically, in a free market, price falls as the result of competition among suppliers to offer better goods and services for any given number of customers. Is that a reasonable expectation in the case of commercial human spaceflight? The short answer is no. Simply put, a competitive, free-market in commercial human spaceflight is unlikely to develop for several reasons. 1. First, developing a spacecraft capable of safely launching people into orbit, operating there, and returning them safely to the planet is extraordinarily difficult, with extremely low tolerances for risk. For comparison purposes, launching SpaceShip 1, a privately-developed and revolutionary spacecraft capable of carrying people to suborbital space, requires roughly 2% of the total energy required to take the same mass to low-earth orbit.24 Solving such complex problems is not beyond the wherewithal of the private sector. After all, the bulk of NASA’s spacecraft were developed by contractors, and the private sector developed, owns and operates much of the nation’s infrastructure. Human spaceflight to LEO is different, however, than developing or operating the complex terrestrial systems frequently created by the private sector. It requires the development of entirely new technologies and capabilities, for which there has been no private demand or commercial reward. So, there have not been sufficient incentives for the private sector to bring its otherwise healthy abilities to mobilize massive amounts of capital or solve complex problems to bear. There simply is no useful comparison between the public and private sector interests when it comes to human spaceflight. Indeed, to date, only three governments have been able to organize the financial, organizational, scientific, and technical resources to achieve this task. At the time, two of them were superpowers and the third appears to be on the verge of becoming one. 2. Second, solving those technical challenges is extraordinarily expensive, creating a high barrier to entry into the market segment by new, potential suppliers, assuming there is an expectation of an adequate payoff after such market entry. Arguably, NASA’s initial expenditures may offset this by providing “seed” money that enables private entrants April 2010 7 to raise more private capital at a lower cost, while its demand for services theoretically creates a payoff. Still, for reasons discussed below, that “seed” money will likely be wholly inadequate. According to a study commissioned by the Commercial Spaceflight Industry, total cumulative investment committed to the commercial human spaceflight through the fall of 2009 was $1.46 billion—including government funding— of which just $838 million remained available.25 While this may seem like a significant amount of money, in aerospace development programs it is not. For comparison purposes, Boeing (a commercial company using commercial practices to develop a commercial product for mature markets and using well understood technology) pegged the cost of developing the first three Boeing 787 Dreamliners at roughly $2.5 billion.26 Meanwhile, revenue for actual commercial spaceflight services offered by the industry between 2006 and 2008 (inclusive), totaled $117.6 million. (Any revenue for an industry that cannot currently provide the services it offers reflects confidence on the part of those paying customers in the industry’s ability to do so in the future.) The industry derives significant other revenue from selling hardware, engineering services, and other non-commercial services, in which case they may differ insignificantly from aerospace firms not focused on commercial human spaceflight. 3. Third, U.S. government demand for human spaceflight services is modest. Ideally, a full crew complement aboard the International Space Station is 6-7 people, each of whom stays for roughly 6 months . Each of these individuals has to be launched to orbit and returned to earth, totaling a minimum of 12- 14 round trip seats to LEO . In practice, the demand for human access to LEO is higher because the ISS partners launch more astronauts to ISS than are needed to maintain a full crew complement . Of the universe of individuals launched to orbit, some become crewmembers; some pilot spacecraft back and forth; and some simply visit. In 2010 NASA will launch four shuttle missions carrying a total of 25 people to orbit, but ISS will only be crewed by 12 people, not all of whom are Americans. So, for the sake of argument, assume that the U.S. government demand for human access to space is 25 round trips to LEO per year. NASA’s recent annual cost to own and operate the space shuttle has been about $3 billion, roughly $120 million a seat. 27 Additionally, two factors create downward pressure on that demand. The ISS partners can maintain the station with fewer people; it is not mandatory that six people occupy the ISS at all times or that a separate person ferry them to orbit. Moreover, several of those crew slots are controlled by other ISS partners, most notably including the Russian government, which has its own means, indeed, the only means, of reaching the ISS after 2010. Indeed, the United States’ obligations to the International Space Station partners require it to provide round trips for 8 people . Without plans for human spaceflight beyond the International Space Station, even this demand will collapse after 2020 when the International Space Station is retired. Some may argue that demand will be higher because the private sector will seek to go to space as well, once a private capability to take people to orbit exists. This seems to be the logic behind the administration’s plans. It hopes increased demand will lead to new suppliers, which promotes competition, which eventually lowers prices. Unfortunately, increased demand normally leads to higher prices until the market reaches a new equilibrium, a “benefit” that the administration does not advertise . Even then, there is not much evidence to support the notion that private demand will eventually lead to greater, less expensive access to space for people, largely 8 Marshall Institute Policy Outlookbecause no compelling private rationale has been offered to engage in human spaceflight to LEO. According to material prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology in the House of Representatives, NASA did not conduct market research to assess potential demand for private access to LEO before changing its strategy for accessing LEO. Indeed, all that White House officials reportedly could point to in the way of supporting documentation for their underlying assumptions was an eight year old market survey that overestimated the 2002- 2009 demand for commercial human spaceflight by roughly 300%. 28 The greatest potential for market growth may come from space tourism. Since 2001, 7 private individuals have traveled to the International Space Station, paying between $20- $50 million per person to collectively spend 83 days in space. 29 That represents an aggregate commercial demand of up to $350 million for access to LEO over a decade, not likely enough demand to warrant significant private investment in the provision of human spaceflight services to LEO, particularly given the extraordinary costs associated with providing those services. Private capital does not usually chase negative returns. Indeed, the only reason such a market exists is that the governments that own and operate the International Space Station and associated launch vehicles were willing to make the capability created by their taxpayers available to private, paying customers at the margins. They did not recover the full costs of creating such capabilities in the sales price of the private tickets and there was never much private capital at risk in exploiting this market. (Nobody has assessed the opportunity cost paid by those taxpayers to make such capabilities available for private gain). Without this massive government intervention in the market, the supply and demand curves for private human access to space would not have crossed.

Privatization Fails – General There is no demand for human space flight, and if there was, prices would increase.Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf]

113


Third, U.S. government demand for human spaceflight services is modest. Ideally, a full crew complement aboard the International Space Station is 6-7 people, each of whom stays for roughly 6 months. Each of these individuals has to be launched to orbit and returned to earth, totaling a minimum of 1214 round trip seats to LEO. In practice, the demand for human access to LEO is higher because the ISS partners launch more astronauts to ISS than are needed to maintain a full crew complement. Of the universe of individuals launched to orbit, some become crewmembers; some pilot spacecraft back and forth; and some simply visit. In 2010 NASA will launch four shuttle missions carrying a total of 25 people to orbit, but ISS will only be crewed by 12 people, not all of whom are Americans. So, for the sake of argument, assume that the U.S. government demand for human access to space is 25 round trips to LEO per year. NASA’s recent annual cost to own and operate the space shuttle has been about $3 billion, roughly $120 million a seat.27 Additionally, two factors create downward pressure on that demand. The ISS partners can maintain the station with fewer people; it is not mandatory that six people occupy the ISS at all times or that a separate person ferry them to orbit. Moreover, several of those crew slots are controlled by other ISS partners, most notably including the Russian government, which has its own means, indeed, the only means, of reaching the ISS after 2010. Indeed, the United States’ obligations to the International Space Station partners require it to provide round trips for 8 people. Without plans for human spaceflight beyond the International Space Station, even this demand will collapse after 2020 when the International Space Station is retired. Some may argue that demand will be higher because the private sector will seek to go to space as well, once a private capability to take people to orbit exists. This seems to be the logic behind the administration’s plans. It hopes increased demand will lead to new suppliers, which promotes competition, which eventually lowers prices. Unfortunately, increased demand normally leads to higher prices until the market reaches a new equilibrium, a “benefit” that the administration does not advertise. Even then, there is not much evidence to support the notion that private demand will eventually lead to greater, less expensive access to space for people, largely 8 Marshall Institute Policy Outlook because no compelling private rationale has been offered to engage in human spaceflight to LEO. According to material prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology in the House of Representatives, NASA did not conduct market research to assess potential demand for private access to LEO before changing its strategy for accessing LEO. Indeed, all that White House officials reportedly could point to in the way of supporting documentation for their underlying assumptions was an eight year old market survey that overestimated the 20022009 demand for commercial human spaceflight by roughly 300%.

Costs and safety standards for launching astronauts are unreachably highKrauthammer 10 (Charles, weekly columnist for the Washington Post, “Closing the new frontier,” 2/12, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/11/AR2010021103484.html)

Of course, the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA's efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars. This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It's too expensive. It's too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high . Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative "clean energy." Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration. As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can't afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?

Privatization Fails – I-Law Space treaties don’t address commercial exploration of space such as who profits from the ventures, meaning no private operations will be launched.ABA Journal 9 (7/20/09, American Bar Association, “Revising the Outer Space Treaty”, Revising the Outer Space Treaty)

It's not at all clear that the Outer Space Treaty as currently fashioned is adequate to deal with private exploitation of space . The ABA Journal explains that: In viewing space as the province of mankind, the Outer Space Treaty borrows principles from customary maritime law, which guarantees peaceful passage through navigable waters by ships of all nations. But in application, the Outer Space Treaty is more similar to the Antarctic Treaty System, a series of international agreements that call for cooperative management of Antarctica as a nonmilitarized environment and put off claims of sovereignty for an indefinite period. But as the prospects for commercial ventures in space increase, it will be necessary to address the issue of who will be allowed to profit from the fruits of those ventures, say lawyers in the field. “The current system works if nations accept a détente in space and all the resources are only used for the benefit of all mankind ,” Keefe says. “If that’s the case, then there will never be commercialization of space and there will be little benefit for mankind . I know that’s a cynical capitalist viewpoint, but I think if everyone is afraid to launch a venture because they might not be allowed to profit from it, then nothing will happen .”

114


And, International law is key to human survival.Damrosch & Mullerson 95 (Damrosch is a professor of law @ Columbia, Mullerson is a professor of International Law @ King’s, Beyond Confrontation: International Law for the Post Cold War Era, pg. 2-3)

I. Pressures on International Law: Demands Placed on It and Obstacles to Its Effectiveness The contemporary world has an ever increasing need for an international legal system that can respond to the demands of our time . Of the many reasons for this fact, we will survey only a few of the most salient. First and foremost is the increasing interdependence of all peoples. Even as the world is riven with many contradictions and conflicts, it is also becoming more integrated with a greater need for orderly, predictable conduct. Events, and especially natural and social disasters, even when they occur within a single country, have more noticeable effects on conditions in the world at large. The Chernobyl accident, the earthquake in Armenia, and even internal political processes underway in the territories of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe—these and many other events occurring within separate countries or regions have a global significance affecting the destiny of all peoples. The intertwining of the economic life of diverse countries today is even greater than was the interdependence of different regions within the same state only half a century ago. Order and predictability of the behavior of actors on the international scene can be achieved first of all with the aid of social norms, among which international law occupies an important place. A second reason for the growth of the role of international law is inextricably connected with the first. The threat of a thermonuclear catastrophe, universal ecological crisis, and acute economic problems in developing countries are of global concern and endanger the very existence of humanity. Resolution of these problems demands coordinated efforts of all states and peoples, which would be impossible to achieve without the aid of international norms, procedures, and institutions. A third reason is the breathtaking political transformations of recent years. The changes that began in 1985 in the former Soviet Union and were unleashed in Eastern Europe have radically transformed the map of the world. Although it is impossible to give a final evaluation of the character and significance of these changes at the present time, it is possible to conclude that the fundamental global contradiction of the Cold War era—the contradiction between socialism and capitalism, which to a great extent determined not only the general climate in the world but also the role and significance of international law in it—has been overcome. In the Charter of Paris for a New Europe, 32 countries of Europe, together with the United States and Canada, affirmed that "the era of confrontation and division in Europe has ended." The end has come not only for division in Europe, but also in the world at large. But this fact can hardly lead automatically to a non-contradictory, stable, world order. The acuteness of conflicts that are not connected with the so-called "fundamental contradiction of the epoch" can even intensify, as the unleashing of savage interethnic conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union amply demonstrates. Nonetheless, it is precisely the cooperation between former ideological and political adversaries that can serve as the prerequisite and condition for the resolution of many of problems and conflicts. A vivid example may be found in the reaction of world society to the aggression of Iraq against Kuwait and the reining in of the aggressor with the aid of U.N. mechanisms in accordance with the U.N. Charter and other norms of international law.

Privatization Fails – Jobs Privatization of space program kills one in three jobs at the Kennedy Space centerChang 10 [Kenneth, NYT, “Obama Plan Privatizes Astronaut Launchings,” 1-28, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html]

Mr. Obama’s proposal would further dismantle what remains of the human spaceflight initiative started by the Bush administration in 2004. Last year, $3.5 billion in spending was cut from President George W. Bush’s NASA budget projection for 2011 through 2013, money that would have been used to develop the lander that was to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The proposed budget increase would also be much less than the $3-billion-a-year increase that a blue-ribbon committee appointed by the Obama administration said was needed for NASA to successfully pursue a human spaceflight program beyond low-Earth orbit. As widely expected, Mr. Obama’s request will seek to extend the life of the space station five years, to 2020. It also proposes investments to improve the facilities at the Kennedy Space Center. The retirement of the space shuttles will cost at least 4,600 of the 15,000 jobs at the Kennedy Space Center. The administration official said the commercial launching initiative could create up to 1,700 jobs in Florida, but that figure is based on projections of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, a trade group. Sally K. Ride, a former astronaut who served on the blue-ribbon panel, said she was encouraged by the budget increase for NASA in light of the planned freeze on domestic spending over all. “They plan to be sending people beyond low-Earth orbit, and they have a good formulation,” Dr. Ride said. “I think the way to evaluate this plan when it’s rolled out is to ask whether the administration has given NASA the funds for what it’s asked to do.” “It appears to me the answer is yes,” Dr. Ride said, based on briefings she had received on the plans. She said the administration took options the panel presented and “came up with an innovative approach for NASA.”

Privatization would not only be a safety risk but also kill thousands of jobs across the countryBacchus 10 (James, former member of Congress, “Obama's Plan for NASA and Reaffirming Our Commitment to Space Exploration,” 2/9, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-bacchus/obamas-plan-for-nasa-and_b_455074.html)

115


Congress has long encouraged the development of a commercial space industry. While a Member of Congress, I initiated and co-sponsored some of those legislative efforts. At a time when American leadership in space technology is being increasingly challenged worldwide, we need to continue to help move our private sector forward . The President's proposal would definitely do that. What are the concerns? One is safety. No one who watched the Challenger explode in the skies over Central Florida -- as I did -- need be reminded about the risks of space travel or the imperative of safety. Chip Bolden, the new NASA administrator, surely needs no reminder. He is a former astronaut. Careful consideration must be given to what it will take to qualify commercial rockets for a "human rating." It is one thing to carry cargo. It is quite another to carry people. We need the highest safety standards. Another concern, of course, is jobs. The retirement of the shuttle fleet at yearend will jeopardize 7,000 jobs at the Kennedy Space Center and all along the "Space Coast" of Central Florida in my former Congressional district. We must do all we can to save those jobs. For me, the simple fact that many of those jobs are held by my friends and my former constituents is reason enough to do everything possible to save them. But much more is at stake for our entire country. Overall U.S. industrial capacity fell by an estimated one percent in 2009 -- the largest yearly decline ever. Goods-producing businesses shed more than 2.3 million jobs last year. At such a time, do we really want to throw away the critical mass and the critical skills of thousands of space workers in Florida, Texas, California, and elsewhere in this country whose labors have secured and sustained America's comparative advantage in what will surely be one of the key global industries of the twenty-first century?

Privatization Fails – Laundry List Commercial human spaceflight will fail for three reasons: difficulty, expense, and lack of industry/demand. Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf] NH

NASA seems to assume that buying human spaceflight services will lead to lower prices. Typically, in a free market, price falls as the result of competition among suppliers to offer better goods and services for any given number of customers. Is that a reasonable expectation in the case of commercial human spaceflight? The short answer is no. Simply put, a competitive, free-market in commercial human spaceflight is unlikely to develop for several reasons. 1. First, developing a spacecraft capable of safely launching people into orbit, operating there, and returning them safely to the planet is extraordinarily difficult, with extremely low tolerances for risk . For comparison purposes, launching SpaceShip 1, a privately-developed and revolutionary spacecraft capable of carrying people to suborbital space, requires roughly 2% of the total energy required to take the same mass to low-earth orbit.24 Solving such complex problems is not beyond the wherewithal of the private sector. After all, the bulk of NASA’s spacecraft were developed by contractors, and the private sector developed, owns and operates much of the nation’s infrastructure. Human spaceflight to LEO is different, however, than developing or operating the complex terrestrial systems frequently created by the private sector. It requires the development of entirely new technologies and capabilities, for which there has been no private demand or commercial reward. So, there have not been sufficient incentives for the private sector to bring its otherwise healthy abilities to mobilize massive amounts of capital or solve complex problems to bear. There simply is no useful comparison between the public and private sector interests when it comes to human spaceflight. Indeed, to date, only three governments have been able to organize the financial, organizational, scientific, and technical resources to achieve this task. At the time, two of them were superpowers and the third appears to be on the verge of becoming one. 2. Second, solving those technical challenges is extraordinarily expensive, creating a high barrier to entry into the market segment by new, potential suppliers, assuming there is an expectation of an adequate payoff after such market entry. Arguably, NASA’s initial expenditures may offset this by providing “seed” money that enables private entrants to raise more private capital at a lower cost, while its demand for services theoretically creates a payoff. Still, for reasons discussed below, that “seed” money will likely be wholly inadequate. According to a study commissioned by the Commercial Space- flight Industry, total cumulative investment committed to the commercial human spaceflight through the fall of 2009 was $1.46 billion—including government funding— of which just $838 million remained available.25 While this may seem like a significant amount of money, in aerospace development programs it is not . For

116


comparison purposes, Boeing (a commercial company using commercial practices to develop a commercial product for mature markets and using well understood technology) pegged the cost of developing the first three Boeing 787 Dreamliners at roughly $2.5 billion.26 Meanwhile, revenue for actual commercial spaceflight services offered by the industry between 2006 and 2008 (inclusive), totaled $117.6 million. (Any revenue for an industry that cannot currently provide the services it offers reflects confidence on the part of those paying customers in the industry’s ability to do so in the future.) The industry derives significant other revenue from selling hardware, engineering services, and other non-commercial services, in which case they may differ insignificantly from aerospace firms not focused on commercial human spaceflight. 3. Third, U.S. government demand for human spaceflight services is modest. Ideally, a full crew complement aboard the International Space Station is 6-7 people, each of whom stays for roughly 6 months. Each of these individuals has to be launched to orbit and returned to earth, totaling a minimum of 12- 14 round trip seats to LEO . In practice, the demand for human access to LEO is higher because the ISS partners launch more astronauts to ISS than are needed to maintain a full crew complement. Of the universe of individuals launched to orbit, some become crewmembers; some pilot spacecraft back and forth; and some simply visit. In 2010 NASA will launch four shuttle missions carrying a total of 25 people to orbit, but ISS will only be crewed by 12 people, not all of whom are Americans. So, for the sake of argument, assume that the U.S. government demand for human access to space is 25 round trips to LEO per year. NASA’s recent annual cost to own and operate the space shuttle has been about $3 billion, roughly $120 million a seat. Additionally, two factors create downward pressure on that demand. The ISS partners can maintain the station with fewer people; it is not mandatory that six people occupy the ISS at all times or that a separate person ferry them to orbit. Moreover, several of those crew slots are controlled by other ISS partners, most notably including the Russian government, which has its own means, indeed, the only means, of reaching the ISS after 2010. Indeed, the United States’ obligations to the International Space Station partners require it to provide round trips for 8 people. Without plans for human spaceflight beyond the International Space Station, even this demand will collapse after 2020 when the International Space Station is retired. Some may argue that demand will be higher because the private sector will seek to go to space as well, once a private capability to take people to orbit exists. This seems to be the logic behind the administration’s plans . It hopes increased demand will lead to new suppliers, which promotes competition, which eventually lowers prices. Unfortunately, increased demand normally leads to higher prices until the market reaches a new equilibrium, a “benefit” that the administration does not advertise. Even then, there is not much evidence to support the notion that private demand will eventually lead to greater, less expensive access to space for people, largely because no compelling private rationale has been offered to engage in human spaceflight to LEO. According to material prepared for the Committee on Science and Technology in the House of Representatives, NASA did not conduct market research to assess potential demand for private access to LEO before changing its strategy for accessing LEO. Indeed, all that White House officials reportedly could point to in the way of supporting documentation for their underlying assumptions was an eight year old market survey that overestimated the 2002- 2009 demand for commercial human spaceflight by roughly 300%.

Privatization fails – by the time commercial vehicles have passed the safety standards, the U.S. will have already had to resort to their back-up and it may be too late.Kushner 10 (David, award-winning journalist, Discover, “Launching Into the Era of Private Spaceflight,” 1/5, http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/18-launching-into-age-of-private-spaceflight/article_view?b_start:int=4&-C=)

To start flying humans into space, Sierra Nevada (or any other private firm) will have to reach many milestones in development, testing, and financing. Not only do the companies need to pass NASA’s safety standards with unproved spacecraft, but they must train astronauts on the new equipment as well. Even the most optimistic estimates suggest it will be three to five years before a commercial vehicle is ready to reach the International Space Station. In other words, the United States faces the exact same gap in space access that got Sirangelo motivated to begin developing the Dream Chaser five years ago. “The shuttle will stop flying next year, and we’re not going to have a human-rated vehicle to take to station. That problem is our fault ,” Olson admits. The problem could get worse. If the commercial companies cannot deliver the vehicles on the anticipated schedule, NASA will have no back-up other than the Soyuz. Even Voss questions the timing of NASA’s sudden conversion to a free-market philosophy. “I think they made a mistake by canceling the Constellation program without having an alternative in place,” he says.

Privatization Fails – Leadership The private sector is not prepared to lead the way on new space missionsLivingston 2k (David M. Livingston, business consultant, financial advisor, and strategic planner, 8/10/2000, “From Earth to Mars: A Cooperative Plan,” http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/from_earth_to_mars_a_cooperative_plan.shtml) TWP

Regarding the private sector, some of the same components are missing, such as leadership, education, commitment, and acceptance. Unfortunately, the private sector has been conditioned to believe that our space program is the proper function of government. This is to be expected since the commercial space industry of today, while highly profitable and successful, was initiated by government policy and acts of Congress. In addition, space commercialization developed on a dual track with the military's usage of space and communication satellites, even to the extent of using military rockets for all commercial satellite launches. The private sector simply is not prepared to lead the way with something as unique, costly, risky, and new as putting humans on Mars. It still looks to the public sector for leadership, support, and encouragement. Thus, there is no private-sector leadership that can do what public sector leadership has the opportunity to do. While the opportunity does exist for developing private-sector leadership in this field, it is not within the culture of the private sector at this time to do so. This fact needs to change before the private sector can help lead the way to putting people on Mars.

117


Privatization Fails – No Investment Cutting government spending makes the deficit worse.AOL 10 (“Debate: Obama's Space Privatization Plan Is a Costly Mistake”, 4-15, http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/15/debate-obamas-space-privatization-plan-is-a-costly-mistake/,)

There is still no deal in the debt ceiling impasse between Congressional Republicans and the president, so we can't say who "won." But we can definitely say who lost: America. Even if we ultimately get the touted "Grand Bargain," it's not going to be grand for anybody who correctly identifies unemployment and our economy's anemic growth as the biggest crises we're facing. After the champagne has been uncorked and lots of backs have been slapped in DC, the lives of regular Americans will not be better -- indeed, they will almost certainly be worse. Here's the maddening part: if Congress and the president had focused on the crisis of jobs and growth, the solutions they would have come up with would also have been the best solutions to the long-term debt crisis . The fact is, you can cut all the discretionary spending you want -- but it's growth, not cutting that will solve our long-term deficit problem .

The private sector can’t get to space without government funding, which they will have to compete for.PERMANENT 2 (Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in the Near Term “Government History and Issues,” http://www.permanent.com/ep-govt.htm)

It is an issue of debate whether the private sector will industrialize space on a large scale, or bring us space colonization, without initial government assistance in one form or another. However, two things are clear: There has been to date no strong government leadership for developing lunar and asteroidal material to lay the foundation for the private sector to industrialize and colonize space, which is what the people of our democracies would want most according to sample polls. Instead, there are just massive government spending projects with the ultimate aim of an international space station (mainly US-Russian) heavily dependent upon more government spending in the future, and the ultimate vision of a government-dependent manned Mars mission. Only trickles go into lunar and asteroidal materials utilization areas of research (most of which is steppingstone work for a Mars mission). There is not likely to be any such leadership in the future as long as governments depend upon guidance coming out of the existing space program bureaucracies. With tight government spending and competing projects and interest groups, the established competitors within the bureaucracy have become increasingly fierce with each other, and new proposed projects from the outside encounter tough barriers and hostility. Any major new initiative will have to come from the White House or its equivalent leadership super-elite in other countries . It's an issue of new leadership. The space program has its roots in government investment, doing things that the private sector simply did not fund. This includes development of rockets for lifting payloads to orbit, and basic space satellite technology, which of course was later picked up by the private sector. Communications satellites have transformed our world dramatically. Besides space development, another example of a government seed project is the internet itself, a result of the US government's Advanced Research Projects Agency's (ARPA) groundwork into a decentralized data communications system that would be robust during war.

Privatization fails – politicians and space experts have their doubts about private companiesKushner 10 (David, award-winning journalist, Discover, “Launching Into the Era of Private Spaceflight,” 1/5, http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/18-launching-into-age-of-private-spaceflight/article_view?b_start:int=4&-C=)

118


But many politicians and pundits do not trust that private companies can get the job done safely and effectively. Their concerns range from the technological challenges to the economics of putting people into space: If NASA downsizes, where will the money come from to finance the development of a whole new industry? And if other customers do not materialize, can NASA alone keep that industry afloat? The attacks have been especially swift and sharp from senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), who represent states that currently get substantial NASA investment, as well as from former Apollo astronauts Neil Armstrong and Eugene Cernan. Armstrong called the cancellation of Constellation "devastating." More surprising, even major aerospace companies have expressed doubt. John Karas, vice president and general manager of human spaceflight at Lockheed Martin, recently declared, “I don’t think there is a business case for us.” “I don’t believe this was the right way to go at this time, as it places an incredible amount of pressure on private companies,” says Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. “They say they’re up to it, and I hope they are, but government policy should not be so reliant on private business plans.”

Privatization Fails – Bill Fails Privatization fails—the bill would flounder in the Senate and without legislation, privatization is simply not possibleBoyle, Science Editor 04 (Alan, “Private spaceships caught in political fog”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5085384/ns/technology_and_science-space/)

Almost three months ago, amid great fanfare, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a historic measure to open the door to private-sector spaceflight — a measure that would allow entrepreneurs to take passengers on suborbital space trips. The chairman of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert, called the legislation "one of the most important measures this committee will move this year." California millionaire Dennis Tito, the world's first paying space passenger, said "I hope the Senate takes up this bill soon and sends it on to President Bush for his signature." But since then, the bill — known as the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004, or H.R. 3752 — has languished without Senate action. And some in the infant space travel industry are increasingly worried the measure might just fizzle out . Without the legislation, private spaceflight could be left in "legal limbo," said XCOR Aerospace, a California-based company that received a suborbital launch license just last month. Such a scenario could leave unclear whether suborbital spaceships should be regulated like rockets, as the Federal Aviation Administration is doing now, or like airplanes, which would involve far tighter regulations. There would be no legal framework for taking on paying passengers. And perhaps most importantly, investors would lack legal assurances that the industry in which they were investing will actually take off .

Privatization fails—the bill has a limited time to clear Congress, otherwise it will be too late for private companies to obtain fundingBoyle, Science Editor 04 (Alan, “Private spaceships caught in political fog”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5085384/ns/technology_and_science-space/)

In the meantime, XCOR and its allies are nervous about the lack of progress — and about the prospect of changing language that reflects regulations drawn up by the FAA itself. The main concerns are that major changes may ruin more than a year's worth of careful negotiations that led to the bill's House passage — and that if the bill is held up for much longer, it will be lost in the shuffle of summer recesses and the fall political campaign. "The metric of success is enacting a perfected version of H.R. 3752 as soon as possible," said Jim Muncy of PoliSpace, a Virginia-based space policy consulting firm that is advising XCOR. .The bill would likely be brought up under the Senate's unanimous-consent rules — which means every senator would have to be satisfied with the language. That includes Inhofe as well as other senators who might become dissatisfied with a change that goes too far in a different direction. If the bill doesn't clear both houses in the 40-odd days left in this congressional session, backers on both sides of the current debate would have to start from scratch when the new Congress convenes next year. In the meantime, XCOR, Rocketplane and other builders of reusable launch vehicles might find it hard to raise money for their ventures.

119

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5085384/ns/technology_and_science-space/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5085384/ns/technology_and_science-space/


Privatization Fails – No Investors Privatization is failing—there are issues concerning vehicle licensing that make it hard for the bill to pass, which worries investorsBoyle, Science Editor 04 (Alan, “Private spaceships caught in political fog”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5085384/ns/technology_and_science-space/)The negotiations are so behind-the-scenes that participants are reluctant to name names publicly. But the main players can be identified through a close reading of corporate news releases and other published reports. On one side are XCOR and other leaders of the effort to get the bill passed quickly. On the other side is Oklahoma-based Rocketplane, as well as others concerned that the legislation could be read too restrictively. In the middle: the House members and staff who dealt with the original bill, as well as members of the Oklahoma congressional delegation, such as Republican Sen. James Inhofe. Rocketplane, which began construction of its Oklahoma facilities just this January, wants to make sure that its XP hybrid jet-rocket plane will be licensed under the legislation as a suborbital vehicle, rather than facing a dual licensing procedure as a rocket and as a jet airplane. The House bill defines a suborbital rocket as a "rocket-propelled vehicle intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight." Although Rocketplane has received assurances that its rocket-jet hybrid would fall under that definition, the company wants something more explicit. "It gets down to the bottom line that these technologies use rockets to go a certain distance to space, but there are others with jet engines involved, and essentially they should be licensed as rockets," said Kevin Kelly of Washington-based Van Scoyoc Associates, a government affairs firm that is assisting Rocketplane. Otherwise, Rocketplane is worried that it could face delays in getting the XP licensed and in the marketplace — and such worries could make potential investors skittish as well.

Lack of investor confidence causes a dollar pull out, and escalating levels of financial crisis, collapsing the economy.Sinai et al 4 (Allen, Chief Global Economist at the Brookings Institute, Peter R. Orszag, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, previous Director of the Congressional Budget Office, current director of the Office of Management and Budget, Robert E. Rubin, Director of the National Economic Council under President Clinton, Former Advisor on Economic Policy to President Clinton, Former Treasury Secretary, former CEO of Citigroup, Office of the Chairman at the Brookings Institute. “Sustained Budget Deficits: Longer-Run U.S. Economic Performance and the Risk of Financial and Fiscal Disarray” http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2004/0105budgetdeficit_orszag.aspx)

The adverse consequences of sustained large budget deficits may well be far larger and occur more suddenly than traditional analysis suggests , however. Substantial deficits projected far into the future can cause a fundamental shift in market expectations and a related loss of confidence both at home and abroad. The unfavorable dynamic effects that could ensue are largely if not entirely excluded from the conventional analysis of budget deficits. This omission is understandable and appropriate in the context of deficits that are small and temporary; it is increasingly untenable, however, in an environment with deficits that are large and permanent. Substantial ongoing deficits may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing negative cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy: * As traders, investors, and creditors become increasingly concerned that the government would resort to high inflation to reduce the real value of government debt or that a fiscal deadlock with unpredictable consequences would arise, investor confidence may be severely undermined; * The fiscal and current account imbalances may also cause a loss of confidence among participants in foreign exchange markets and in international credit markets, as participants in those markets become alarmed not only by the ongoing budget deficits but also by related large current account deficits; * The loss of investor and creditor confidence, both at home and abroad, may cause investors and creditors to reallocate funds away from dollar-based investments, causing a depreciation of the exchange rate, and to demand sharply higher interest rates on U.S. government debt ; * The increase of interest rates, depreciation of the exchange rate, and decline in confidence can reduce stock prices and household wealth, raise the costs of financing to business, and reduce private-sector domestic spending; * The disruptions to financial markets may impede the intermediation between lenders and borrowers that is vital to modern economies, as long-maturity credit markets witness potentially substantial increases in interest rates and become relatively illiquid, and the reduction in asset prices adversely affects the balance sheets of banks and other financial intermediaries; * The inability of the federal government to restore fiscal balance may directly reduce business and consumer confidence, as the view of the ongoing deficits as a symbol of the nation's inability to address its economic problems permeates society, and the reduction in confidence can discourage investment and real economic activity; * These various effects can feed on each other to create a mutually reinforcing cycle; for example, increased interest rates and diminished economic activity may further worsen the fiscal imbalance, which can then cause a further loss of confidence and potentially spark another round of negative feedback effects. Although it is impossible to know at what point market expectations about the nation's large projected fiscal imbalance could trigger these types of dynamics, the harmful impacts on the economy, once these effects were in motion, would substantially magnify the costs associated with any given underlying budget deficit and depress economic activity much more than the conventional analysis would suggest. Indeed, the potential costs and fallout from such fiscal and financial disarray provide perhaps the strongest motivation for avoiding substantial, ongoing budget deficits.3

120


Nuclear war.The Baltimore Examiner 9 [“Will this recession lead to World War II,” 2/26, http://www.examiner.com/x-3108-Baltimore-Republican-Examiner~y2009m2d26-Will-this-recession-lead-to-World-War-III]

Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.

Privatization Fails – Space Heg U.S. government involvement key to space heg.Fakiolas and Fakiolas 9 (Efstathios T. Fakiolas and Tassos E. Fakiolas, Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Peloponnese, and Special Advisor on Russian and East European Affairs, Greece, June 2009, “Space control and global hegemony,” The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, http://kida.re.kr/data/kjda/RKJD_A_387383_P.pdf)

In this context, and in light of the warning spelled out by his minister of defense that the country might confront a ‘‘Space Pearl Harbor,’’ Bush called for a review of U.S. space policy, emphasizing the need for the deployment of an anti-ballistic missile shield with space-based components,46 in order ‘‘to prevent blackmail.’’47 His space-policy intentions were initially reflected in the Directive of January 2002, which stipulated missile defense as ‘‘a national priority.’’ Having set up the Missile Defense Agency, it aimed to lay the groundwork for transforming U.S. national missile defense into ‘‘an integrated global missile defense capability.’’48 Four years later, in August 2006, Bush authorized a new space policy which plainly stated that because the United States regarded space capabilities as ‘‘vital to its national interests,’’ it would preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so. . .and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests. What is more, Washington would develop and use ‘‘space nuclear power systems’’ in order to enhance its space capabilities.49 At present the United States is determined not only to protect its right to use space for military and civilian purposes and ensure freedom of action, but also to deter potential enemies from having access to or using space. It identifies space operations conducted by state or non-state opponents or adversaries as a ‘‘disruptive challenge’’ to its military capabilities and national interests.50 It considers space, in addition to the land, sea, air, and cyberspace, a domain of the battle-space and space capabilities as an essential component of the application and projection of military force.51 Having founded the Pentagon’s Executive Agent for Space, it pursues a policy to ‘‘enjoy an advantage in space capabilities across all mission areas’’ and ‘‘develop responsive space capabilities in order to keep access to space unfettered, reliable and secure.’’ It intends to achieve this goal by ‘‘staying at least one technology generation ahead of any foreign or commercial space power.’’52 Thus, for instance, in February 2008 the U.S. military destroyed the defunct and out-of-control USA 193 spy satellite with a specially designed SM-3 ballistic missile.53

And, U.S. leadership prevents multiple scenarios for nuclear conflict – collapse causes transition warsKagan 7 (Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “End of Dreams, Return of History”, Policy Review, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html#n10)

Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere ; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region , whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power , the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons . That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world , however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War I and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union , that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War II would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present

121


American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power . The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order , with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may

Privatization Fails – Space Heg erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia , forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China , which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe , too, the departure of the United State s from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “ offshore balancing ” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “ offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel , which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation . In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries . The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition , which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition . The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran . The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path .

122


Privatization Fails – War Private corporations are underway making space the next conflict zone.Gagnon 4 (Bruce, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, “Space privatization: Road to conflict?”, 7/23, http://www.peoplesworld.org/space-privatization-road-to-conflict/)

So let’s just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars – who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police? In the congressional study published in 1989 called “Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years,” we get some inkling of the answer. The forward to the book was signed by the former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), among others. The book stresses the importance of military bases on the moon and suggests that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the “gravity well,” between Earth and the moon. It notes, “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return.” Plans are now underway to make space the next “conflict zone” where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private “space pioneers” are the first step in this new direction. Ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the “shipping lanes” on and off the planet Earth. After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the “new world,” Queen Isabella began the 100-year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new “interests and investments” around the world. This helped create the global war system.

Space wars make space unusable for future generationsO’Neill, ‘8 - Postgraduate Researcher at University and Webmaster at the Mars Foundation (3/24, Ian, “A Space War would be a Seriously Messy Business”, Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/24/a-space-war-would-be-a-seriously-messy-business/)

What if there was a Pearl Harbour-like, pre-emptive strike against orbiting satellites? What if our quarrels on the ground spill into space? This is no longer a storyline for the next sci-fi movie, early warning systems are currently being developed to defend satellites, low Earth orbit satellites are being quickly and accurately shot down by the US and China, plus satellite technology is becoming more and more valuable as a strategic target. Like all wars there is a losing side, but in the event of a war in space, we'll all be losers . Its one thing watching a space battle in a sci-fi movie, it's quite another to see it happen in reality. The critical thing about blowing stuff up in space is it produces a lot of mess and will leave a nasty legacy for future generations. Space debris is becoming a serious problem and should there be some form of orbital war, the debris produced may render space impassable .

Ten to the 32nd power human lives perish each second we delay space colonization.Bostrum 3 (Professor of Philosophy at Yale, Is Cosmology Relevant to Transhumanism?)

Suns are illuminating and heating empty rooms; unused energy is being flushed down black holes; our great common endowment of negentropy is being irreversibly degraded into entropy on a cosmic scale, as I write these words. These are resources that an advanced civilization could have used to create value-structures, such as sentient beings living worthwhile lives. The rate of this loss boggles the mind. One recent paper speculates, using loose theoretical considerations based on the rate of increase of entropy, that the loss of potential human lives in our own galactic supercluster is at least ~10^46 per century of delayed colonization (Cirkovic 2002) . This estimate assumes that all the lost entropy could have been used for productive purposes, although no currently known technological mechanisms are even remotely capable of doing that. Since the estimate is meant to be a lower bound, this radically unconservative assumption is undesirable. We can, however, get a lower bound more straightforwardly by simply counting the number or stars in our galactic supercluster and multiplying this number with the amount of computing power that the resources of each star could be used to generate using technologies for whose feasibility a strong case has already been made. We can then divide this total with the estimated amount of computing power needed to simulate one human life. As a rough approximation, letÕs say the Virgo Supercluster contains 10^13 stars. One estimate of the computing power extractable from a star and with an associated planet-sized computational structure, using advanced molecular nanotechnology (Drexler 1992) , is 10^42 operations per second (Bradbury 2000) . A typical estimate of the human brainÕs processing power is roughly 10^17 operations per second (Bostrom 1998; Kurzweil 1999) or less (Moravec 1999). Not much more seems to be needed to simulate the relevant parts of the environment in sufficient detail to enable the simulated minds to have experiences indistinguishable from typical current human experiences (Bostrom 2001) . Given these estimates, it follows that the potential for approximately 10^38 human lives is lost every century that colonization of our local supercluster is delayed; or equivalently, about 10^31 potential human lives per second.

Privatization Links to Arms Races 123

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/24/a-space-war-would-be-a-seriously-messy-business/


Privatizing space causes arms races – different companies interpret laws and treaties differently.SSP 9 (Space Science Program -- International Space University, “SAFEN EARTH: Space Aid for Energy Needs on Earth”)

Besides the issue of operation on celestial bodies and mining there, all liabilities connected with launching objects to space and operations is space as described under the SBSP section would apply. Private international law, involving contractual agreements among states and corporations, governs procedures and practices assigning liability, responsibility and dispute resolutions. If mining on the moon were to become a reality, private national laws will have to be adopted between countries (Saleh, 2002). International space law addressing exploitation and use of the Moon resources by both states and private entities leave room for different interpretations by states. As a result, future mining of extraterrestrial resources by public or private entity will have to be governed by agreements among states. These will need to address lunar activities-related issues, including property rights in order to avoid political tensions. Furthermore the OST also prohibits “harmful contamination” of the Moon and “adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter.” As there are currently no legally-binding obligations for protection of the Moon and other celestial bodies by states, mining activities on the Moon could potentially result in inter-governmental tensions.

Private sector action links to arms races.Salin 1 (Patrick, Writer for Space Policy and previously taught at McGill University, “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” February, p. 2-3 science direct)

The administrative status of global space operators, whether public or private, has no impact on their final liability (if any), but their actions may (and will) heavily impact on the global international community. Private corporations have a de facto equal status to that of public space agencies . The worrying factor in the development of outer space exploitation is that * so far * there has been little in the way of an elective international responsibility (or liability) for wrongful acts that are committed or that bear consequences in outer space. This is the consequence of the fact that no litigation has ever been pursued on the basis of the 1972 Liability Convention or of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, neither of which has yet been tested in terms of benefit sharing [10]. This means that, for practical purposes, the Liability Convention is unworkable. Large private corporations are on an equal footing with public bodies and behave as if they were enjoying a kind of &national' immunity that is commensurate with the size of their project . A good illustration of that observation was provided in March 1997 with the licensing of Teledesic Corp. by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), after intense diplomatic pressure had been exercised by the US delegation during WARC95.8 Contrary to its actions over much smaller projects, the FCC did not check any of Teledesic's technical or financial parameters, nor did it even impose an agenda for a project of the magnitude of close to 1000 satellites, according to its original plan, i.e. more than three times the total number of US civilian satellites that were in outer space at that time. Since then, this project has been scaled down two or three times and we are not even sure that it will ever be launched. So far, the fully licensed Teledesic project is nothing more than a huge &paper satellite' system, while the competing SkyBridge project still awaits FCC authorization in order to be operated over North America as part of its global coverage of the Earth. That shows there is always a national state that backs up a satellite operator * public or private * that is active in Outer Space at a global scale. Here we have a paradox consisting in having &national' regulators that license &global' operators, thanks to technology. This paradox fully explains the difficulties that global operators are facing in their relationship with other national authorities [11]. This is inevitable as long as there is no such thing as a World Space Organization under which global satellite operators must be registered and to which they must be liable. The ITU does not provide such a commitment because it is only a technical organization; we may say that global satellite systems have no accountability towards the international community and, even worse, behave by taking into account the ITU's own weaknesses.9 Reforms have been proposed in order to restructure the ITU organization [12}14]. But others think it is better to keep things as they are, with outer space being exploited almost like a lawless &wild outer space', with minimal supervision, under benevolent home state licensing and passive ITU registration. If this situation remains unchanged, no doubt such private operators will inevitably drag their licensing state to the forefront . Unfortunately, in outer space we won't talk about oil spills, but we may in the future see satellite explosions, or satellites colliding with one another, or we may simply notice malfunctions causing a satellite to cease functioning properly, sometimes without being able to really identify the cause of the malfunction or of the incident [15].10 And what about a nuclear accident in outer space?

Privatization promotes militarization—it is hard to separate private space ventures from military operationsDinerman 9 (Taylor, author and journalist based in New York City, The Space Review, “Space weapons: soft power versus soft politics” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1317/1)

Trevor Brown believes that “The United States would do well to keep a low profile for its military space program and burnish its technological image by showcasing its commercial and scientific space programs. Doing so would enable it to accumulate rather than hemorrhage soft power.” To a very limited extent this is useful advice, but in fact there is little, short of censorship, the US can do to keep its military space operations under wraps. The debates over space power and space weaponization are going to continue under the new administration, and perhaps even gain in public prominence. Civil space programs are indeed useful tools for enhancing international cooperation, but they cannot in the short term build soft power. Scientific joint ventures, even with states that may not be friends or allies, are not to be sneered at. Commercial space ventures are notoriously difficult to disentangle from their half-hidden military motives. The mess the US has created for itself thanks to the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is evidence of this.

Privatization Links to Arms Races Arms races create multiple scenarios for nuclear war and draw in the U.S.Rosen 6 (Stephen, After Proliferation, Foreign Affairs, Sep/Oct, Vol. 85 Issue 5, ASP)

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in an intense arms race and built up vast nuclear arsenals. Other binary nuclear competitions, however, such as that between India and Pakistan, have been free of such behavior. Those states' arsenals have remained fairly small and relatively unsophisticated. Nuclear-armed countries in the Middle East would be unlikely to display such restraint. Iran and Iraq would be much too suspicious of each other, as would Saudi Arabia

124


and Iran, Turkey and Iraq, and so forth. And then there is Israel. Wariness would create the classic conditions for a multipolar arms race, with Israel arming against all possible enemies and the Islamic states arming against Israel and one another. Historical evidence suggests that arms races sometimes precipitate wars because governments come to see conflict as preferable to financial exhaustion or believe they can gain a temporary military advantage through war. Arguably, a nuclear war would be so destructive that its prospect might well dissuade states from escalating conflicts. But energetic arms races would still produce larger arsenals, making it harder to prevent the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear arms races might emerge in regions other than the Middle East as well. Asia features many countries with major territorial or political disputes, including five with nuclear weapons (China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia). Japan and Taiwan could join the list. Most of these countries would have the resources to increase the size and quality of their nuclear arsenals indefinitely if they so chose. They also seem to be nationalist in a way that western European countries no longer are: they are particularly mindful of their sovereignty, relatively uninterested in international organizations, sensitive to slights, and wary about changes in the regional balance of military power. Were the United States to stop serving as guarantor of the current order, Asia might well be, in the words of the Princeton political science professor Aaron Friedberg, "ripe for rivalry"--including nuclear rivalry. In that case, the region would raise problems similar to those that would be posed by a nuclear Middle East. The United States has not been strategically affected by the peacetime arms races of other countries since the global competition for naval power and the European bomber contests of the 1920s and 1930s. Were such rivalries to emerge now, it is unclear how Washington would, or should, respond. During the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet strategists worried not only about how to protect their own countries from nuclear attack but also about how to protect their allies. Questions about the credibility of such "extended deterrence" were never fully resolved, but their urgency was lessened, in the United States at least, by Washington's decision to bind itself tightly to its NATO partners (going so far as to station U.S. nuclear missiles in West Germany and Turkey). Similar questions will inevitably return if proliferation continues. In a future confrontation between Iran and Kuwait, for example, a nuclear-armed Tehran might well try to coerce its opponent while treating Washington's protests and threats as a bluff. Would heading off such challenges require the formation of a new set of tight alliances, explicit security guarantees, and integrated defense structures?

Privatization Links to Coercion Privatization leads to greed—corporations will “privatize” profits and seek to expand control of trade in space and taxpayers won’t see a return of profits.Gagnon 4 (Bruce, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, “Space privatization: Road to conflict?”, 7/23, http://www.peoplesworld.org/space-privatization-road-to-conflict/)

The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space. Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier." Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment." So let's just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars. Who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who

125


will be the space police? In the Congressional study published in 1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years we get some inkling of the answer. The forward of the book was signed by many politicians like former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). The author reported to Congress on the importance of military bases on the moon and suggested that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the "gravity well", between the Earth and the moon. The author reported to Congress that "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return." Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone" where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth . After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the "new world," Queen Isabella began the 100 year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new "interests and investments" around the world. This helped create the global war system. Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more. Privatization really means that profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created .

Privatization Links to Politics Congress backlashes against the CP, costing Obama capital.Hopkins 1 (Mark Hopkins led the legislative efforts of the L5 Society and, later, NSS and its affiliated organizations. He has been an officer of L5 /NSS for 20 of the previous 24 years and was instrumental in the merger, which created the National Space Society in 1987. Hopkins, a California Institute of Technology and Harvard educated economist, has written numerous articles concerning space economics (January/February 2001, Mark, “Economic Barriers to Space Settlement,” http://www.nss.org/settlement/roadmap/economic.html)

Few other democratic nations are doing business this way. They have multi-year funding. Why hasn't the United States already dealt with this problem? In a word, politics. There is a broad consensus in the industry that a change to multi-year funding would substantially improve the efficiency of major space projects. However, it would also reduce congressional power . Members of Congress would give up a great degree of control and sacrifice campaign fundraising leverage. Asking any legislative body to vote to reduce its influence is asking a lot. Overcoming this economic barrier will require making a strong and persistent case based on international precedent, long-term savings, and more efficient results.

Privatizing the space industry as generated opposition in congress.Pastzor 10 [Andy, WSJ, “White House Decides to Outsource NASA Work,” 1-24, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704375604575023530543103488.html]

The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter. The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget,

126


would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system. Congress is likely to challenge the concept's safety and may balk at shifting dollars from existing National Aeronautics and Space Administration programs already hurting for funding to the new initiative. The White House's ultimate commitment to the initiative is murky, according to these people, because the budget isn't expected to outline a clear, long-term funding plan. The White House's NASA budget also envisions stepped-up support for climate-monitoring and environmental projects, along with enhanced international cooperation across both manned and unmanned programs. Press officials for NASA and the White House have declined to comment. Industry and government officials have talked about the direction of the next NASA budget, but declined to be identified. The idea of outsourcing a portion of NASA's manned space program to the private sector gained momentum after recommendations from a presidential panel appointed last year. The panel, chaired by former Lockheed Martin Corp. Chairman Norman Augustine, argued that allowing companies to build and launch their own rockets and spacecraft to carry American astronauts into orbit would save money and also free up NASA to focus on more ambitious, longer-term goals. However, many in NASA's old guard oppose the plan. Charles Precourt, a former chief of NASA's astronaut corps who is now a senior executive at aerospace and defense firm Alliant Techsystems Inc., said that farming out large portions of the manned space program to private firms would be a "really radical" and an "extremely high risk" path. Unless the overall budget goes up, he said, whatever new direction NASA pursues "isn't going to be viable." Such arguments already are raging around NASA's Ares I rocket, which could be replaced or scaled back if the commercial option gains traction. Some Ares I contract work could be shifted toward providing the basic elements of a future larger, more-powerful NASA family of rockets. Alliant and other Ares proponents have argued the program is several years behind schedule primarily because Congress and previous administrations failed to provide promised funding. According to some of these analyses, Congress in the past five years earmarked a total of about $4 billion less than initially projected for NASA's manned exploration programs. The design of the Ares I also changed and became more complex since its inception. Ares critics, on the other hand, counter that instead of costing about $4.3 billion as originally planned, the Ares booster is likely to cost more than three times that much. The program already has spent roughly $4 billion, and these critics say that exceeds original funding profiles for the Ares I by hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, they say that year-by-year expenditures actually exceeded the original timetable. NASA's last budget projected spending another $9.5 billion through 2015. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., founded by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk, is one of the start-up commercial ventures likely to gain from the proposed policy shift. But other large incumbent NASA contractors such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing Co. also are likely to compete for some of the anticipated government seed money earmarked for new commercial ventures. The White House's budget is bound to spark a battle with Congress because NASA would have to kill off big chunks of its existing manned exploration program in order to finance some of these new initiatives in the coming years. The budget package, slated to be released in early February, is expected to stop short of proposing major cancellations. But it also isn't likely to specify how all the different programs can be adequately funded in the future. Under the White House proposal, the agency's top-line budget is expected to stay close to the $18.7 billion in the current fiscal year. Only a small portion—roughly $200 million—is likely to be slated for the initial phase of opening up NASA's manned space exploration program to private firms. However, that initiative is expected to cost a least $3.5 billion—and potentially much more—over the next five years. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat who heads a key subcommittee, has blasted the notion of shifting money to outsource transporting astronauts to the international space station. Unless Congress makes the NASA budget a higher priority, Rep. Giffords said during a hearing last month, there won't be enough money for robust manned exploration efforts of any kind and U.S. human space flight could be "on hold for the foreseeable future."

Members of Congress from states with NASA jobs will fight any move to privatize the space program.DISCOVER 10 [Discover Magazine, “Obama’s NASA Budget: So Long, Moon Missions; Hello, Private Spaceflight,” 2-10, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/02/01/obamas-nasa-budget-so-long-moon-missions-hello-private-spaceflight/]

However, the White House’s plan to shift to private spaceflight has already ruffled plenty of feathers. Congressional representatives from states with many NASA jobs, like Florida and Texas, have promised to fight the move all the way. Michael Griffin, the previous NASA administrator who served under President George W. Bush, was even more bitter at seeing Obama cut his prized program: “It means that essentially the U.S. has decided that they’re not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future… One day it will be like commercial airline travel, just not yet. It’s like 1920. Lindbergh hasn’t flown the Atlantic, and they’re trying to sell 747s to Pan Am” [Washington Post].

Privatization Links to Politics There is wide scale bipartisan opposition to the privatization of the space program.Washington Times 10 (2/26/10, Washington Times, “Refocused NASA gets bipartisan criticism”, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/26/criticism-of-refocused-nasa-bipartisan/?page=1)

President Obama’s decision to kill the U.S. government’s manned space flight program and quash a planned mission to the moon ran into bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill on Thursday. Republicans and Democrats alike on the House Science and Technology Committee - many with major space-program facilities in their districts - expressed dismay with Mr. Obama’s decision, included in his proposed fiscal 2011 budget for NASA released earlier this month. Rep. David Wu, Oregon Democrat, called the decision “premature” and asked whether Mr. Obama’s cuts “doom us to a future where there are no Americans in space or at least that the dominant language in space is not English.” Added Texas Republican Rep. Michael T. McCaul, “I’m concerned about human space-flight mission being completely cut from this program. It seems to me that we’re getting away from the core mission of NASA.” Mr. Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget actually calls for a slight spending increase for NASA over the next five years, but not nearly enough to fund the estimated $81 billion Constellation program, established under President George W. Bush and aimed at returning U.S. astronauts to the moon by 2020. Critics say the Constellation program has been plagued by budget and technical problems. Mr. Obama’s NASA budget envisions a new direction for the U.S. space program, relying heavily on private companies to deliver astronauts into orbit. The immediate target of the lawmakers’ ire was new NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former space shuttle pilot himself. Mr. Bolden defended the cancellation of the Constellation program and the agency’s new marching orders. “I consulted with the president, I played an integral part,” Mr. Bolden said after several members expressed their frustration with the decision. “I wish I could blame it on somebody else, but somebody’s got to take the blame.” It was the second straight day of grilling on Capitol Hill for the NASA chief, who took heat from a Senate panel the day before on the controversial cuts. The hearings were the first public opportunity for lawmakers to question the new NASA budget. Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, told Mr. Bolden Wednesday he would fight Mr. Obama’s new space blueprint “with every ounce of energy I have.” Several House lawmakers Thursday disagreed with the proposed commercialization of space flights, under which NASA would contract private companies for astronaut transportation to the International Space Station . The budget includes new funds to upgrade and extend the space station’s life span until 2020 or beyond. “I was against privatization in the Bush administration, and I’m against it in the Obama administration,” Mr. Wu said. “I think that you all are running a huge risk.” Rep. Ralph Hall, Texas Republican, said in a statement that NASA cannot ensure that safety with “commercial systems will be equal” to Constellation. Mr. Bolden said he wants more experienced companies in the aerospace industry to become involved in NASA’s program, especially since a trip to Mars is his “ultimate goal.”

127


Privatization of the shuttle system is unpopular with congressmen from states with NASA jobs.Chang 10 [Kenneth, NYT, “Obama Plan Privatizes Astronaut Launchings,” 1-28, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/science/space/29nasa.html]

President Obama will end NASA’s return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday. The shift would “put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center. “My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation’s human space flight program,” Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement. Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget compared with projections last year. With the increase, NASA would receive $100 billion over the 2011 through 2015 fiscal years. The new money would largely go to commercial companies that would provide transportation to and from the International Space Station. Until now, NASA has designed and operated its own spacecraft, like the space shuttles. The commercial rockets would displace the Ares I, the rocket that NASA has been developing for the past four years to replace the shuttles, which are scheduled to be retired this year. Companies expected to seek the new space taxi business include United Launch Alliance, a partnership between Boeing and Lockheed Martin that launches rockets for the United States Air Force, and Space Exploration Technologies, a start-up company led by Elon Musk, who founded PayPal. Speaking at a news conference in Israel on Wednesday, Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., the NASA administrator, gave hints of the new direction. “What NASA will focus on is facilitating the success of — I like to use the term ‘entrepreneurial interests,’ ” General Bolden said. Skeptics wonder whether the commercial approach would be significantly faster or cheaper than completing the Ares I and the Orion capsule that would carry the astronauts, and how astronaut safety would be maintained. NASA has spent about $9 billion on Ares I and Orion. “We have already spent valuable time and billions of dollars developing this program,” Representative Michael McCaul, Republican of Texas, said in an e-mail statement. “It makes no sense to throw away a plan backed by 50 years of NASA experience and institutional knowledge in favor of start-up operations, which may encounter delays and unknown obstacles.”

CP does link to politics – Congress opposes private leadership of space exploration.Dyson 10, Esther, chairman of EDventure Holdings and an investor in a variety of start-ups, 2/8, “Prepare for Liftoff,” Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/prepare_for_liftoff) NH

However, common sense doesn't always rule in politics. When the Internet opened up to commerce, there were objections from the high priests of the cyberspace, who didn't want anyone to turn their holy calling into a business. In the case of space, there are jobs at stake and, more importantly, politicians' careers at stake. Obama is proposing to cancel some $25 billion in NASA programs -- with most of the cuts affecting jobs in Alabama, Utah, and Texas, whose congressional delegations are now up in arms.

Privatization Links to Arms Races Not a net benefit.SSP, 2009 [Space Science Program -- International Space University, “SAFEN EARTH: Space Aid for Energy Needs on Earth”]Besides the issue of operation on celestial bodies and mining there, all liabilities connected with launching objects to space and operations is space as described under the SBSP section would apply. Private international law, involving contractual agreements among states and corporations, governs procedures and practices assigning liability, responsibility and dispute resolutions. If mining on the moon were to become a reality, private national laws will have to be adopted between countries (Saleh, 2002). International space law addressing exploitation and use of the Moon resources by both states and private entities leave room for different interpretations by states. As a result, future mining of extraterrestrial resources by public or private entity will have to be governed by agreements among states. These will need to address lunar activities-related issues, including property rights in order to avoid political tensions. Furthermore the OST also prohibits “ harmful contamination” of the Moon and “ adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter.” As there are currently no legally-binding obligations for protection of the Moon and other celestial bodies by states, mining activities on the Moon could potentially result in inter-governmental tensions.

Private sector links to arms racesSalin, 1 – Writer for Space Policy and previously taught at McGill University (February, 2001, Patrick A., “Privatization and militarization in the space business environment,” p. 2-3 science direct) JVThe administrative status of global space operators, whether public or private, has no impact on their "nal liability (if any), but their actions may (and will) heavily impact on the global international community. Private corporations have a de facto equal status to that of public space agencies. The worrying factor in the development of outer space exploitation is that * so far * there has been little in the way of an elective international responsibility (or liability) for wrongful acts that are committed or that bear consequences in outer space. This is the consequence of the fact that no litigation has ever been pursued on the basis of the 1972 Liability Convention or of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, neither of which has yet been tested in terms of bene"t sharing [10]. This means that, for practical purposes, the Liability Convention is unworkable. Large private corporations are on an equal footing with public bodies and behave as if they were enjoying a kind of &national' immunity that is commensurate with the size of their project. A good illustration of that observation was provided in March 1997 with the licensing of Teledesic Corp. by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), after intense diplomatic pressure had been exercised by the US delegation during WARC95.8 Contrary to its actions over much smaller projects, the FCC did not check any of Teledesic's technical or "nancial parameters, nor did it even impose an agenda for a project of the magnitude of close to 1000 satellites, according to its original plan, i.e. more than three times the total number of US civilian satellites that were in outer space at that time. Since then, this project has been scaled down two or three times and we are not even sure that it will ever be launched. So far, the fully licensed Teledesic project is nothing more than a huge &paper satellite' system, while the competing SkyBridge project still awaits FCC authorization in order to be operated over North America as part of its global coverage of the Earth. That shows there is always a national state that backs up a satellite operator * public or private * that is active in Outer Space at a global scale. Here we have a paradox consisting in having &national' regulators that license &global' operators, thanks to technology. This paradox fully explains the di$culties that global operators are facing in their relationship with other national authorities [11]. This is inevitable as long as there is no such thing as a World Space Organization under which global satellite operators must be registered and to which they must be liable. The ITU does not provide such a commitment because it is only a technical organization; we may say that global satellite systems have no accountability towards the

128


international community and, even worse, behave by taking into account the ITU's own weaknesses.9 Reforms have been proposed in order to restructure the ITU organization [12}14]. But others think it is better to keep things as they are, with outer space being exploited almost like a lawless &wild outer space', with minimal supervision, under benevolent home state licensing and passive ITU registration. If this situation remains unchanged, no doubt such private operators will inevitably drag their licensing state to the forefront. Unfortunately, in outer space we won't talk about oil spills, but we may in the future see satellite explosions, or satellites colliding with one another, or we may simply notice malfunctions causing a satellite to cease functioning properly, sometimes without being able to really identify the cause of the malfunction or of the incident [15].10 And what about a nuclear accident in outer space?

AT Brown (CP Solves Arms Race) Brown is soooooo wrong. The CP doesn’t solve weaponization perceptions -- empirical proof.Dinerman, 9 – Taylor Dinerman is an author and journalist based in New York City. (March 2, 2009, Taylor, “Space weapons: soft power versus soft politics,” http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1317/1) JV

National Security Space Office official Pete Hays, speaking at an International Space University (ISU) symposium in Strasbourg France on February 19th, said unequivocally that the US has “…in terms of funded [space weapons] programs, they’re aren’t any. I can tell you that categorically.” In contrast, Trevor Brown, writing in the spring 2009 issue of the Air and Space Power Journal, published by the Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, claims that the US does in fact have plans to weaponize space. The difference may be simply a matter of perception. Trevor Brown sees things like the XSS-11 as being either space weapons prototypes themselves or as precursors to such systems. With some more justification he sees the US missile defense systems, such as the Ground Based Interceptors located in Alaska and California and the Navy’s SM-3 sea-based missiles, as constituting “space weapons”. If soft power is essentially cultural, then it may be that it is the creative artistic industries of America that are at fault rather than the politicians. The argument over what is and what is not a “space weapon” is not going to go away. Similarly, the definition of what is and what is not “soft power” is by no means settled. Brown seems to think of soft power as essentially something political, and quotes Joseph Nye to that effect: “Soft power therefore is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity; it is a means of obtaining outcomes the US wants…” This is one version of what it is, but there is another. Soft power, according to this explanation, is above all a cultural phenomena and cannot readily be manipulated by any government. It is the sum result of the creative and imaginative efforts of a whole nation, and its influence, while profound, cannot be easily translated into political actions. If soft power is essentially cultural, then it may be that it is the creative artistic industries of America that are at fault rather than the politicians. The growing cultural influence of India’s “Bollywood” is caused by the fact that they are giving their customers a product they want to see. Can the same be said for Hollywood? For decades intellectuals throughout the world have complained about US “cultural imperialism”. This influence has been, I believe, at the heart of what has been termed soft power. In 1999, in an article titled “Culture and Geopolitics in the Age of Oprah” published in the Journal of Social, Economic and Political Studies, I wrote that “To Europe’s elites this is deadly serious; it is a question of who will control their children’s minds… It is a last ditch struggle to seize back power over their civilization’s collective dreams.” The 2006 US Space Policy would not have been better received in Europe if it had been promulgated by a president more popular than George W. Bush, though the hysterical media reaction might have been less. Europe’s dislike of US space power is not based on America’s lack of soft power, but on the reality of its hard power. This is not something that better public relations or better public diplomacy can ever change. Trevor Brown believes that “The United States would do well to keep a low profile for its military space program and burnish its technological image by showcasing its commercial and scientific space programs. Doing so would enable it to accumulate rather than hemorrhage soft power.” To a very limited extent this is useful advice, but in fact there is little, short of censorship, the US can do to keep its military space operations under wraps. The debates over space power and space weaponization are going to continue under the new administration, and perhaps even gain in public prominence. Civil space programs are indeed useful tools for enhancing international cooperation, but they cannot in the short term build soft power. Scientific joint ventures, even with states that may not be friends or allies, are not to be sneered at. Commercial space ventures are notoriously difficult to disentangle from their half-hidden military motives. The mess the US has created for itself thanks to the International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) is evidence of this. Brown quite rightly points out that in a dangerous world “There is, therefore, no question of whether to proceed with space weapons—only a question of how to do so with the requisite political skill in order to retain soft power while expanding hard power.” The problem is not with the goal but rather with the nature of soft power. If it is essentially political, then perhaps clever diplomacy can help reconcile places like Europe to the reality of American space weapons. On the other hand, if this is a cultural concept then the tools of politics and diplomacy are almost entirely useless. Impressive acts of scientific and technical prowess, such as the 1969 Apollo 11 mission, do contribute to America’s soft power. This is why so many people who, for one reason or another despise the US, claim that the Moon landing never happened. However the impact from that event was never translated into political success. No nation changed its policy on America’s effort to save South Vietnam because of Apollo. Space activities do indeed contribute to American soft power, but they do so slowly and in unpredictable ways. At roughly the same time as Apollo, America led an effort called the “Green Revolution” that radically increased food production in

129


many parts of the world and has made mass starvation from natural causes more or less a thing of the past. This should have generated a huge soft power dividend. Yet millions of people whose lives were improved or even saved by this effort detest the nation that filled their bellies . One must conclude that soft power does not grow out of good or impressive deeds. Space activities do indeed contribute to American soft power, but they do so slowly and in unpredictable ways. Apollo, for example, showed the Russians what the US could do if it was motivated. This convinced them that they could not afford to ignore Ronald Reagan’s 1983 call for missile defenses. Another example of this is way the environmental movement’s iconic images of Earth came from US sources, and influenced power relationships inside that community. (Though in fact the first picture of an Earthrise was Russian.) The fact that these images were American helped give American environmentalists a strong claim to the global leadership of the movement, for good or ill. In the near future, support for the US space program may be motivated, in part, by the desire for soft power. It would be wise to acknowledge that while this aspect of NASA’s and NOAA’s activities may be useful, it is impossible to measure and will be hard to describe in any rational way. The basic justifications for space exploration have little to do with soft power and everything to do with the need to expand humanity’s field of activities.

AT Space Guard NB Space guard doesn’t get created – too controversial.Bennett 11 — author of The Anglosphere Challenge (Rowman and Littlefield, 2004), has been involved in space entrepreneurship, consulting, and advocacy for more than three decades (Winter 2011, James C., "Proposing a 'Coast Guard' for Space," The New Atlantis, Number 30, Winter 2011, pp. 50-68. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/proposing-a-coast-guard-for-space)

Creating a Space Guard on this model would involve substantial change in the structure and organization of the U.S. government. Change of this magnitude would require the expenditure of political capital, not least because the U.S. Air Force, NASA, and their political patrons could be expected to resist ceding funds, functions, and personnel to a new organization. Indeed, the McKinley paper elicited a substantial negative response from parties related to the Air Force. Therefore, in proposing such a change, we must ask not just what problems it might solve but also which political actors might benefit sufficiently to justify the expenditure of their capital.

130

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/proposing-a-coast-guard-for-space


Privatization Doesn’t Solve Mars Exploration Government key for a Mission to Mars – structural roadblocks prevent private involvement in such a large mission. Choi 11 (Charles, Writer for Astrobiology Magazine, “Red Planet for Sale? How Corporate Sponsors Could Send Humans to Mars” http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news/redplanetforsalehowcorporatesponsorscouldsendhumanstomars, Acc 7/25) NH

Astronauts have never set foot on Mars, and like the Apollo missions that sent men to the moon, the mission to Mars would need teams of engineers and other scientists working together over many years, with cost concerns more about staying under a projected budget than earning big profits. Governments also pioneered space travel due to the risky and untested aspects of venturing into such territory. Only after pushing boundaries to make voyages into space safer, more routine and less expensive, could business go where they once feared to tread. “I think it likely most people would find it difficult to conceive there wouldn’t be any government involvement in such a mission,” said space-law expert Timothy Nelson at New York-based law firm Skadden. “The possession of a rocket alone would probably trip you up on the military regulations that govern the ownership of missile technology in the United States. Not to sound too cynical, but space rockets were built as a byproduct of the arms race.”

Political pressure would be too greatCarberry 10 (C.A., Artemis, Bake, Executive Director, Explore Mars, Inc., President, Explore Mars, Inc, and Project Leader, ISRU Challenge, Explore Mars, October-November 2010, “The Mars Prize and Private Missions to the Red Planet,” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars139.html) TWP

The question is not can we mount a private one-way mission to Mars relatively cheaply? The question is whether it is politically and ethically feasible? The United States government would never send a one-way mission. It has become far too risk averse to even consider such a concept. The question therefore is, would the private sector? Companies and private individuals are very much susceptible to political pressure and public outcry. Once it became known that a consortium or individual was going to send someone on what could be a suicide mission to Mars (even if the person funding the mission was the person making the trip), there would be a massive national and international debate on the topic. While this could have positive aspects, it could also present some very negative consequences, particularly if Congress and other bodies create legal and regulatory roadblocks – this could also hinder other space exploration efforts.

Government support is necessary and private benefits are questionableLivingston 2k (David M. Livingston, business consultant, financial advisor, and strategic planner, 8/10/2000, “From Earth to Mars: A Cooperative Plan,” http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/from_earth_to_mars_a_cooperative_plan.shtml) TWP

Government support for the manned mission to Mars is essential, even if the private sector is a significant participant in all aspects of the project. Whether NASA's and the government's influence on space matters is deserved or not, the fact is that everyone looks to these entities to approve new space projects. A space mission that is not endorsed by the government or its primary space agency, NASA, is extremely difficult to plan, finance, market, and initiate. At the present time, there is no support from the government or NASA for a manned flight to Mars. A further reason that makes this Mars mission so daunting is that private-sector benefits are questionable. Simply put, sending humans to Mars is not a priority for businessmen and women unless they can clearly see a way to benefit from their investment. Nor is sending humans to Mars a priority for politicians in the United States or elsewhere.

Private enterprises lack leadership and doubt profits.Livingston 2k (David M. Livingston, business consultant, financial advisor, and strategic planner, 8/10/2000, “From Earth to Mars: A Cooperative Plan,” http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/from_earth_to_mars_a_cooperative_plan.shtml) TWP

131

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars139.html

http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/news/redplanetforsalehowcorporatesponsorscouldsendhumanstomars


Regarding the private sector, some of the same components are missing, such as leadership, education, commitment, and acceptance. Unfortunately, the private sector has been conditioned to believe that our space program is the proper function of government. This is to be expected since the commercial space industry of today, while highly profitable and successful, was initiated by government policy and acts of Congress. In addition, space commercialization developed on a dual track with the military's usage of space and communication satellites, even to the extent of using military rockets for all commercial satellite launches. The private sector simply is not prepared to lead the way with something as unique, costly, risky, and new as putting humans on Mars. It still looks to the public sector for leadership, support, and encouragement. Thus, there is no private-sector leadership that can do what public sector leadership has the opportunity to do. While the opportunity does exist for developing private-sector leadership in this field, it is not within the culture of the private sector at this time to do so. This fact needs to change before the private sector can help lead the way to putting people on Mars. It is also important to realize that the private sector does not yet agree that a manned mission to Mars might offer potential benefits and profits. The private sector is simply unable to convincingly move past the cost and risk factors, the technical and engineering issues, and the precedent that an important space mission is the responsibility of the government, though the private sector may obtain lucrative government contracts for work on the project. Finally, just as government leaders must convince taxpayers, leaders in the private sector must convince their shareholders of the mission's value. The high cost of the mission will make this all the more difficult. Shareholder value is of paramount importance, especially in our current economic climate. While it is possible to demonstrate how investing in a manned mission to Mars can contribute to shareholder and public value, such efforts are not underway at this time, largely because there is no manned mission to Mars on the planning board.

Privatization Doesn’t Solve Space Tourism CP doesn’t solve space tourism – no demand.Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf] NH

The greatest potential for market growth may come from space tourism. Since 2001, 7 private individuals have traveled to the International Space Station, paying between $20- $50 million per person to collectively spend 83 days in space.29 That represents an aggregate commercial demand of up to $350 million for access to LEO over a decade, not likely enough demand to warrant significant private investment in the provision of human spaceflight services to LEO, particularly given the extraordinary costs associated with providing those services. Private capital does not usually chase negative returns. Indeed, the only reason such a market exists is that the governments that own and operate the International Space Station and associated launch vehicles were willing to make the capability created by their taxpayers available to private, paying customers at the margins. They did not recover the full costs of creating such capabilities in the sales price of the private tickets and there was never much private capital at risk in exploiting this market . (Nobody has assessed the opportunity cost paid by those taxpayers to make such capabilities available for private gain). Without this massive government intervention in the market, the supply and demand curves for private human access to space would not have crossed.

132


Prizes Fail Prizes are ineffective – they don’t foster discovery, and there are limitations to who can participateKalil 6 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, the Brookings Institute, “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” 7/28, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf)

Prizes have significant limitations. In most circumstances, they should not be the policy instrument of choice for science and technology. Since only winning teams receive prizes, and only after they have won, all entrants must have or raise the funds necessary to compete. Most researchers and smalland medium-sized companies find it difficult to self-finance or raise external funding. For example, offering a prize for a breakthrough in high-energy physics would not work if it required physicists to raise billions of dollars to build a new particle accelerator. Furthermore, it may be impossible to clearly specify in advance what the victory conditions are, since the outcomes of fundamental research are, by definition, unknowable or difficult to quantify in advance. Many of the most interesting discoveries in science are serendipitous. Even when the goals of a prize are generally understood, it may be difficult to develop appropriately specific proxies for those goals, such as an improvement in the price-to-performance ratio of a given technology, or widespread market acceptance. Finally, prizes are more likely than traditional funding mechanisms to lead to duplication of effort, although this effect can be mitigated through careful program design (Newell and Wilson 2005).

Prizes won’t work – they face many possible problems with politics, funding, and feasibilityKalil 6 (Thomas, Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Science and Technology at UC Berkeley, the Brookings Institute, “Prizes for Technological Innovation,” 7/28, http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200612kalil.pdf)

4. Priz es will not work for long-term, fundamental research. This criticism is largely valid. It is often impossible to specify the goa l of fundamental research. Many important technologica l innovations are the outgrowth of curiosity -driven research . For instance, no sponsor would have established a prize to understand why certain species of jellyfish produce bioluminescence (light), but today the green fluorescent protein is one of the most important techniques for studying genes and proteins in living cells. Furthermore, research fund ing also helps support graduate education and the in frastructure that is needed for science, such as shar ed facilities. Prizes are not a substitute for stable, lo ng-term support for fundamental research . However, even in fundamental research, competitions can play a useful role by helping a research community evaluate progress in the field (O’Neill 2005). One example of this is the Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction. Every two years, research teams make blind predictions about the structures of proteins from a given set of amino acids. Last year, more than two hundred teams from twenty-four countries provided more than thirty thousand predictions. Before this competition, too many published models relied on known results. As prominent biologist David Baker puts it, without competitions—also known as community experiments—the issue is “whether you actually have captured some essential truth about how things work or whether you’ve just managed to twiddle all the numbers so that you reproduce a certain set of results” (quoted in O’Neill 2005). 5. What if attempts to win a prize raise safety or liability issues? Participation in a competition could result in property damage, injuries, or even fata lities. The H-Prize legislation passed by the House requires registered participants to obtain liability insurance, and to indemnify the federal government against third-party claims related to the competition. Some members of Congress are concerned that prizes for space ex ploration might encourage risky behavior . Others believe that these risks are necessary and worth taking. As Peter Diamandis (2004, p. 57) notes, “Space is a frontier and frontiers are risky! As explorers and as Americans, we must have the right to take risks that we believe are worthwhile and significant.” 6. Will prizes be subject to interest group politics or congressional micromanagement? Decisions about which projects science agencies should fund are made largely by the research commu nity through pe er review. Some researchers are concerned that memb ers of Congress could establish prizes for their pet causes. Interest groups or individual firms co uld also capture the process of prize design and write the rules to inflate the value of the prize, favor their technological approach, or establish a prize for a technology they would probably develop in the absence of any inducement. Although the risks of intertwining politics and science are real, they should be evaluated in the context of the alternative policy in which government gives grants for R&D. Pork-barrel politics can also influence grant funding for R&D. Moreover, potential grantees or contractors have an incentive to exaggerate their chances of reaching a particular technological goal, and it is difficult for federal program managers to monitor the performance of their contractors once the grant or contract has been awarded Prizes, on the other hand, must be publicly announced. They will presumably be monitored by a host of possible contestants, who are sure to cry foul if politics has intruded. Prizes do not specify how the technological innovation will be achieved; this will tend to limit micromanagement.

133


Prizes Links to Politics Congress hates NASA prizes.Newell and Wilson 5 (Gendell Associate Professor of Energy and Environmental Economics at the Nicholas School and advisor to President Obama, June 2005, Richard G. and Nathan E., “Technology Prizes for Climate Change Mitigation”, http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-05-33.pdf)

When set up and run by the private sector, the magnitude and technological focus of the prize are delimited mainly by the resources and particular interests of the parties involved. For example, a group of uranium mining firms might have an incentive to establish a technological prize aimed at speeding the commercial development of Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems. By contrast, an environmental organization concerned about both nuclear waste and GHG emissions might prefer to incentivize research into energy efficiency or renewable technologies. A public sector technology prize faces different problems because of political economy concerns. These stem from the fact that the government already engages in considerable amounts of R&D support. In some ways, prizes could have advantages over contracts and grants in this regard. For example, the use of a prize could lessen the influence of politics on research funding. Cohen and Noll (1991) describe many instances in which political economy considerations have led to inefficient research spending. In some cases, the wrong programs—from a greater societal perspective—receive support. In others, although the initial investment might have been appropriate, subsequent events indicated that success would not be forthcoming, but bureaucratic inertia and lobbying ensured that the funding was not discontinued. Using prizes could substantially reduce the likelihood of both of these situations, especially the latter. However, prizes might also have important political economy disadvantages. One particularly important disadvantage is that they will require support by at least some of the institutions associated with preexisting research support programs. Because these institutions could perceive the prizes as an implicit threat, they might react by working to reduce (or at least not improve) their effectiveness. There are several different parts of the government that might be against new technology programs, but one could have a particularly significant impact: the U.S. Congress. Congress has considerable latitude in designating specific areas of research for funding. In practice, the use of earmarked funds allows it to wield considerable power over how and to whom grants and subsidies are dispersed, allowing elected officials to use research funds as a form of “pork” to be distributed to supporters or constituents (Kremer 2000; Abramowicz 2003; Banks, Cohen, and Noll 1991). Not surprisingly, the allocation of funds in this manner may fall significantly short of what is optimal. For example, lobbying by interested parties caused the Synfuels program to focus on Appalachian coal, although Western coal was better suited to Synfuels’s purposes. By making the receipt of funds independent of any governmental oversight, technology prizes could considerably disrupt this arrangement, removing politicians’ capacity to target rewards to specific recipients. To repress this possible transfer of power, Congress could choose to weaken the design of prizes in several ways. First, the relevant appropriations committees could specify that funding must be earmarked for non-prize-related activities. Second, Congress could place limits on the magnitude of the prize award being offered. This could sharply reduce the attractiveness of participation, cutting into its effectiveness. Third, Congress could attempt to target the prize to specific contestants by playing an active role in specifying the technological goal. These types of political economy complications may have bedeviled the establishment of the NASA Centennial Challenges. As stated in Section 3.2, the current prize money totals $400,000, which will be given out over two years in eight different competitions. The Centennial Challenges were not always intended to be this modest in scope. As of December 2004, there was still considerable talk about having the Centennial Challenges offer up to $50 million for major achievements, possibly including private human space travel. However, in order to give individual prizes larger than $250,000, NASA requires congressional action (Zimmerman 2004). Similarly, there are large bureaucratic hurdles to overcome in order for NASA to encourage private space travel. Despite having made public statements supporting the pursuit of space prizes, Congress has not moved to increase NASA’s authority to disperse funds or to facilitate private space travel. Indeed, the only relevant bills being considered as of December 2004 would have specifically limited NASA from ever being able to give a prize larger than $1 million and would have tightened the safety restrictions on any future space flight competitions such as the X-Prize (Zimmerman 2004). It is not difficult to foresee similar problems arising in the case of climate change mitigation technology research. A fuller treatment on the political economy of prizes would be a welcome addition to the discussion of how and where technology inducement prizes could be usefully implemented.

Congress is against allowing NASA to offer prizes Zimmerman 4 [Robert, Space Daily, “Congress Impedes NASA Prizes”, http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nasa-04zt.html, December 2, 2004]

Here, too, Congress has made no effort to grease the wheels and make it easier for NASA to encourage private human space travel. NASA officials have spent innumerable hours over the last few months lobbying Congress for some increased authority and have gotten nothing. In fact, the only bills pending in Congress specifically limit NASA from awarding any prize larger than $1 million. Yet Sponberg still thinks the program can get off the ground. The hope is that when the 109th Congress comes into session next year we'll see progress on this front, he said. Unfortunately, Congress seems to be taking a completely opposite tack. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 - which passed the House last week and is expected to pass the Senate when it reconvenes next week - actually tightens safety restrictions on any future private competitions like the X Prize.

AT: Space Lobby Supports CP 134

http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-05-33.pdf


The Space Lobby isn’t politically powerful.NASAWatch 9 (“More Infighting among the Faithful,” 11/19, http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/more-infighting.html)

Keith's 15 Nov. note: Apparently the Space Frontier Foundation plans to create their own version of "March Storm" - a visit by pro-space advocates to lobby on Capitol Hill. "March Storm" has been conducted for a number of years by another organization, Prospace. Well, Prospace is not too happy about Space Fronter Foundation's usurping of their turf and has fired back with a press release. To be quite honest, I have detected little if any substantive impact on Congress by either group in the past few years. (Sigh) Yet another intramural spat between the true believers - one that will no doubt consume more energy than either group will ever actually spend focusing on Congress - or interacting with the real world outside the little bubble these groups all seem to live within .

AT: Space Settlement Act CP CP can’t solve.Gangale 8 (Thomas, Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, former Air Force officer and aerospace engineer, “Castles in the Air: Debunking the Space Settlement Prize, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,” January, http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/ASM2008_CastlesInTheAir.pdf)

135

http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/ASM2008_CastlesInTheAir.pdf


There are a number of problems with the above passages. First of all, the US is one of those countries whose legal system derives from common law, so how could it legitimately espouse a civil law theory of property rights in outer space? While it is true that Louisiana, as a former territory of France, has a legal tradition that descends from civil law, Louisiana law is not federal law, and what Jobes and Wasser aim at is the extraterritorialization of federal law to the Moon or Mars. In this context, Louisiana law , whatever its tradition may be, is irrelevant. So, if “use and occupation must be the standard for any land claims regimen in space, because the common law standard cannot be applied on a Moon where sovereignty itself is barred by international treaty,” this puts Jobes and Wasser between a Moon rock and a hard place. Moreover, Congress cannot “decree” anything. It may pass bills, which if the President signs them, become law. As a common law nation, “because there can be no government on the Moon, [if a] permanent base or settlement [were to] give itself title just as though it were a government,” it is hard to see how the United States could recognize any such title. The legal concept is incompatible with the legal system of the United States. On this basis alone, any US court is likely to shoot such legislation down in flames. Jobes and Wasser write as though the US legal system were under the complete and direct control of Congress. Have they not heard of the “separation of powers” principle? Secondly, the civil law concept that mixing labor with the soil and creates property rights is inconsistent with Wasser’s earlier suggestion that wealth could be created “out of thin vacuum (Wasser 1997).” But, understandably, they would like to have their green cheese cake and eat it too. Finally, if “use and occupation means the claimants, by establishing a permanent presence on the land, have mixed their labor with the soil and created property rights that are independent of government,” why is it necessary for any government to legislate in this matter? In the absence of government, the right exists by virtue of use and occupation, and the firepower to ensure the continuance of use and occupation. However, this implied use of force is a function of government. For “a permanent base or settlement [to] give itself title just as though it were a government,” it would have to be a government. What is a government? In the present system of nation-states, a government is what the governments of other nation-states say it is. The legitimacy of any government depends in large part on its recognition by other governments. Thus, ultimately, for Jobes’ and Wasser’s ideas to have any specie in the nation-state system, the states of Earth would have to recognize lunar and Martian states. Such ideas may be vehicles for B-grade sci-fi film plots, but they do not have much thrust as a basis for public policy The House of Representatives has no role at all in treaty-making, and the Senate has only the reactive role of giving its advice and consent, not a proactive role. Both houses have standing committees on foreign relations, but their purview is limited to the general legislative power of oversight and investigation. The Congress may direct the State Department all it wants, and the Secretary of State, being answerable only to the President, may nod politely and go about her business.

AT: Space Settlement Act CP CP is not economically feasible – failure is inevitableGangale 8 (Thomas, Executive Director of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, former Air Force officer and aerospace engineer, “Castles in the Air: Debunking the Space Settlement Prize, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,” January, http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/ASM2008_CastlesInTheAir.pdf)

For Wasser to invoke Hope hardly enhances the credibility of either of them. In any case, it takes more than simple arithmetic to understand the mathematics of economics. If this were all there was to it, who would ever have cared about John Forbes Nash’s “beautiful mind?” Wasser neglects basic economic principles such as market size and price elasticities/inelasticities. The fact that Dennis Hope can take $20 each from thousands of people cannot be scaled linearly to infer that there are the billions of buyers who would be required to finance Wasser’s grandiose schemes. It is entirely invalid to extrapolate even a couple of orders of magnitude beyond the referenced data set. Also, a given person may buy an acre of lunar “property” and show the deed around to his friends as a novelty, but is he going to buy a thousand acres and thereby impress his friends with what an idiot he is? The per-acre price of a thousand-acre lot just isn’t the same as the price of a one-acre lot. My estimate of Wasser’s business model is as

136

http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/ASM2008_CastlesInTheAir.pdf


follows. Dennis Hope claims that he has had “more than 3,470,072 customers” in the 26 years he has been in business. Let us stipulate that there are 3.5 million more as-yet untapped suckers in the world (or will be, according to Barnum’s Law, 5 by the time the first privately-financed lunar settlement is established). Let us also stipulate, for the moment, that Hope’s going price of $20 per acre holds, despite the fact that this private entity, which has been cash-flow negative until this point and is desperate for revenue, has now glutted the lunar land market with 600,000 square miles of property for sale, rather than distributing the sales over a 26-year period. The company cannot afford to wait 26 years; it needs the money now! Since there are 640 acres in a square mile, this amounts to 384 million acres. This means that these 3.5 million potential buyers would have to buy an average of not just one acre, but 110 acres, for an average price of $2,200 per buyer. The problem is that the market history is of 3.5 million customers over a 26-year period at a price of only $20. How credible is it that there will be a market of 3.5 million customers at a price of $2,200 over a period of, let us say, a year or two? Not very. Prices will be elastic, since no one on Earth needs to buy land on the Moon; this is an optional purchase. There will be substantially fewer than 3.5 million buyers, and prices will collapse. So, let us come up with a more credible model, and speculate that there might be 350,000 people who would be willing to spend $220 on something that almost none of them will ever be able to see or touch, raising a grand total of $76 million. That might buy a second-hand space suit for someone who got to be an astronaut when he or she grew up. 6 There is more to consider on the subject of the value of scarcity. Regarding his continent-sized land grants, Wasser points out: Fortunately, that is quite small enough to still leave plenty of room for subsequent settlements, since it is only around 4% of the Moon, 6.5% of Mars (Wasser 2001). How true. The surface area of the Moon is equal to all of South America, and the surface area of Mars is equal to all of the land area of Earth. This is hardly what one would call a scarce resource. So, what tangible difference is there between the unimproved land inside Wasser’s property fence and the unimproved land outside it? I am reminded of the scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, in which an entrepreneur sells rocks to the righteous on the road to stoning a blasphemer. Of course, the establishment of their space transport service, which enabled the consortium to win the land grant in the first place, will dramatically increase the value of their land over what it is worth today, when it is inaccessible. As with the land grants that paid for building America’s trans-continental railroads, vast wealth would be created (out of thin vacuum, so to speak) by giving formerly worthless land real value and an owner (Wasser 1997). There are several inaccuracies in this paragraph. First of all, wealth is never created “out of thin vacuum.” Wealth is created from productive activity involving land, capital, and labor. In contrast, Wasser uses language that conjures visions of Ponzi schemes, where money from later investors is used to pay off earlier investors, but all such schemes ultimately collapse. The early investors make out like bandits because they have robbed the later investors, who end up with nothing (SEC 2001, 2004). Also, it very plainly would have been impossible for “land grants [to have] paid for building America’s transcontinental railroads.” If the land over which the railroads were about to be built was worthless, it could not have been a source of capital for building the railroads. Wasser has confused cause and effect; the land began to acquire some value once the infrastructure was in place, once value had been added to the land by the productive application of labor and capital. Given the level of technology, it obviously took a tremendous amount of human labor to build the transcontinental railroads; it also took a great deal of capital. In addition to the grant of lands and right of way, Government agreed to issue its thirty year six per cent. Bonds in aid of the work, graduated as follows: For the plains portion of the road, $16,000 per mile; for the next most difficult portion, $32,000 per mile; for the mountainous portion, $48,000 per mile. The Union Pacific Railroad Co. built 525 78/100 miles, for which they received $16,000 per mile; 363 602/1000 miles at $32,000 per mile; 150 miles at $48,000 per mile, making a total of $27,236,512. The Central Pacific Railroad Co. built 7 18/100 miles at $16,000 per mile; 580 32/100 miles at $32,000 per mile; 150 miles at $48,000 per mile, making a total of $25,885,120. The total subsidies for both roads amount to $53,121,632. Government also guaranteed the interest on the Companies’ first mortgage bonds to an equal amount (Crofutt 1871, 15). $53,121,632 in 1865 dollars equates to more than a billion in 2005 dollars... to build a railroad that private investors, not the taxpayers, own. Far greater subsidies and loan guarantees will be necessary to establish regular transportation service to and a settlement on the Moon or Mars. These projects cannot possibly be financed with grants of as-yet valueless land, any more than the transcontinental railroads were this way. These unimproved (indeed, presently unimprovable due to their inaccessibility) land holdings will secure no present loans, will purchase no present material, and will pay no present wages, whatever their “guessed” future value may be. This would be true even if recognition were given to the land claim on the day that the project began, rather than the land claim being contingent on the success of the project. It is important to remember that, pursuant to Section 4, paragraph 1 of the SSPA, US courts would only “give recognition, certification, and full legal support to land ownership claims based on use and occupation” once a private entity has “established a permanently inhabited settlement on the Moon, Mars, or an asteroid, with regular transportation between the settlement.” Unless and until these conditions were fulfilled, the private entity would own nothing at all.

Space property rights would destroy the OST and space development.Gangale 8 (Thomas, executive director of OPS-Alaska, “Castles in the Air: Debunking the Space Settlement Prize”, Jan, http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/ASM2008_CastlesInTheAir.pdf, accessed 6/25/11, KF)

Since it would not cost anything, or need any appropriations, such legislation might pass as a minor revision of property law (Wasser 1997).... What Wasser proposes is not “a minor revision of property law;” it is a major foreign policy initiative that reverses 40 years of unwavering American commitment to the Outer Space Treaty. Since that treaty is the bedrock of international space law, the cost of unilateral national legislation aimed at diluting the treaty would be incalculable in terms of destabilizing the entire framework of international space law. It can be assumed that many states would be hostile to such a unilateral act, and rather than “adopt similar laws,” states would be far more disposed to enact national legislation repudiating all private property claims in outer space . Forcing an issue usually polarizes the situation. Far from promoting commercial space development by removing a supposed barrier, very real barriers would be thrown up. If anything, commercial space activity would be likely to contract in this atmosphere of political hostility and legal uncertainty. Positions on this issue would harden, and it might take decades for them to soften to the point where meaningful negotiations could take place. Rather than a space Renaissance, Wasser’s proposal would plunge space development into a Dark Age.

AT: Space Settlement Act CP And, treaty breaking kills attempts to solve all global problems – climate, debt, human trafficking, trade, terrorism, etc.Koh and Smith 3 (Harold Hongju, Professor of International Law, Yale Law School, and Bernice Latrobe - Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2737&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1#

Similarly, the oxymoronic concept of "imposed democracy" authorizes top-down regime change in the name of democracy. Yet the United States has always argued that genuine democracy must flow from the will of the people, not from military occupation. n67 Finally, a policy of strategic unilateralism seems unsustainable in an interdependent world. For over the past two centuries, the United States has become party not just to a few treaties, but to a global network of closely interconnected treaties enmeshed in multiple frameworks of international institutions. Unilateral administration decisions to break or bend one treaty commitment thus rarely end the matter, but more usually trigger vicious cycles of treaty violation. In an interdependent world, [*1501] the United States simply cannot afford to ignore its treaty obligations while at the same time expecting its treaty partners to help it solve the myriad global problems that extend far beyond any one nation's control: the global AIDS and SARS crises, climate change, international debt, drug smuggling, trade imbalances, currency coordination, and trafficking in human beings , to name just a few. Repeated incidents of American treaty-breaking create the damaging impression of a United States contemptuous of both its treaty obligations and treaty partners. That impression undermines American soft power at the exact moment that the United States is trying to use that soft power to mobilize those same partners to help it solve problems it simply cannot solve alone: most obviously, the war against global terrorism, but also the postwar construction of Iraq, the Middle East crisis, or the renewed nuclear militarization of North Korea.

137

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1277389719316&returnToKey=20_T9619349026&parent=docview&target=results_DocumentContent&tokenKey=rsh-23.582223.2197311746#n67


AT: Net Benefits Privatization doesn’t mean that taxpayers will no longer be funding space programs, it means the profits will be privatized.Gagnon 3 (Bruce, Coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space and Senior Fellow at The Nuclear Policy Research Institute, “SPACE PRIVATIZATION: ROAD TO CONFLICT?” http://www.space4peace.org/articles/road_to_conflict.htm)

The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R & D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and lets private industry begin to make profit and control space. Thus the idea that space is a "free market frontier." Of course this means that after the taxpayer paid all the R & D, private industry now intends to gorge itself in profits. One Republican Congressman from Southern California, an ally of the aerospace industry, has introduced legislation in Congress to make all space profits "tax free". In this vision the taxpayers won't see any return on our "collective investment." So let's just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars. Who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police? In the Congressional study published in 1989 called Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years we get some inkling of the answer. The forward of the book was signed by many politicians like former Sen. John Glenn (D-OH) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL). The author reported to Congress on the importance of military bases on the moon and suggested that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the "gravity well", between the Earth and the moon. The author reported to Congress that "Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return." Plans are now underway to make space the next "conflict zone" where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private "space pioneers" are the first step in this new direction. And ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the "shipping lanes" on and off the planet Earth . After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the "new world," Queen Isabella began the 100 year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new "interests and investments" around the world. This helped create the global war system. Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won't be paying any more. Privatization really means that

138


profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new "frontier" of conflict is created .

Perm Solvency Privatization alone fails – only a public-private approach guarantees financial stability and growth.Zervos & Seigel 8 (Vasilis, Professor of economics and space policy at the International Space University with a BA in Economics from the American College of Greece, an M.Sc. from the University of Birmingham, UK, and a Ph.D from the University of York, UK, and David, Dean and Professor School of Business, University at Albany, “Technology, Security, and policy implications of future transatlantic partnerships in space: lessons from Galileo”, Research Policy Volume 37, Issue 9, October 2008, Pages 1630-1642)

US efforts to privatize space capabilities have focused on key markets, such as space telecommunications, space transportation and earth observation. However, full privatization of assets such as the Space Shuttle is controversial, given the investment entailed and security concerns (Macauley, 2003). In Europe, the focus on more civil-oriented programs facilitates public–private partnerships and the formation of European multinationals in similar key markets. A breakdown of the consolidated turnover of the European space manufacturing industry in 2002 is illustrative, with Telecommunications, Launching and Earth Observations activities accounting for over €3.5 billion out of a total €4.7 billion, which includes Navigation (€80 million) and scientific activities (Eurospace, 2004). The navigation market was expected to grow rapidly by 2010, based on novel technological uses of navigation and positioning services by automobiles, mobile communication users and commercial airliners (EC, 2002), and other commercial applications. Despite encouraging market projections for navigation markets for example, such industries are subject to numerous market failures. The most prominent market failures are related to early-stage technology and risks associated with future market size, as well as uncertainties in the development of competing and existing publicly developed and owned systems and future security restrictions. Thus, it is unlikely that such a project can be undertaken by industry alone despite the existence of optimistic market projections and returns (see Section 3). For example, in the presence of conflict, such as war between two nations or civil war, where adversaries utilize the signals for military purposes, the stakeholders exercising political pressure for or against regionally jamming the signal could range from the UN and the authorities in the country in question, to financial institutions owning shares in the enterprise. Although ultimately the commercial entity is responsible for obeying the laws and regulations of the licensing country, numerous issues relating to politics and international law are likely to turn potential investors with no public involvement away into ‘safer’ and less strategically significant investments. Multi-public–private partnerships (MP3) spread the financial risk associated with high-technology requirements, while easing investor concerns over politically sensitive security issues and decisions. Moreover, the presence of multiple countries in space projects results in more resilient public commitments, reassuring the private firms .

Public-private partnerships solve any commercial space failure.Zervos & Seigel 8 (Vasilis, Professor of economics and space policy at the International Space University with a BA in Economics from the American College of Greece, an M.Sc. from the University of Birmingham, UK, and a Ph.D from the University of York, UK, and David, Dean and Professor School of Business, University at

139


Albany, “Technology, Security, and policy implications of future transatlantic partnerships in space: lessons from Galileo”, Research Policy Volume 37, Issue 9, October 2008, Pages 1630-1642)

The process of commercialization of space projects aims to develop space markets and industries that utilize public investment . This can be achieved through successful implementation of spin-offs and global characteristics of space assets, which contribute to wealth creation and economic development. However, the strategic significance of space is also significant in its national security dimension. Hence, the objectives of commercialization and security-based strategic considerations are often in conflict. Multi-public partnerships in space have historically been used as tools for enhancing closer political links between participating parties, rather than enhancing economic and industrial returns to the respective nations. The formation of transatlantic multi-public–private partnerships, where partners such as NASA, ESA and industrial firms develop and commercialize space programs such as re-usable launch vehicles for commercial applications (space travel), or radio-navigation services, could provide blueprints for addressing economic and security concerns of using space for commercial purposes. This would require space agencies evolving from acting as ‘black boxes’ of government space programs into more flexible partnerships that would be able to contribute to the commercialization of space programs and systems. Export restrictions and technological-related security issues could then be addressed by the participation of the relevant national agents in the partnerships. Traditionally, national security enhancement has been addressed by government control over the relevant industries (nationalized utilities). Increasingly however, regulation is used to address the security dimension of security sensitive industries and technologies, allowing companies to participate in international partnerships, for example in the aerospace and the oil industry.

Only working with NASA can effective missions take place – VP of the NSS agrees. NSS, 9 (May 26, 2009, National Space Society, “National Space Society Applauds Nomination of Charles Bolden and Lori Garver to lead NASA,” http://blog.nss.org/?p=905) NH

Washington, DC – Tuesday, May 26, 2009 – The National Space Society (NSS) is pleased to congratulate retired Marine Major General and four-time Space Shuttle Astronaut Charles Bolden on his nomination to the office of NASA Administrator and Lori Garver on her nomination to the office of Deputy Administrator. President Barack Obama announced both nominations on Saturday May 23, 2009. “This is an exciting time for NASA and the space industry as a whole,” said Mark Hopkins, Senior Vice President of NSS. “NASA is rebuilding its human exploration capabilities and the private sector is making real progress toward commercial access to space. Garver understands the importance of both. Bolden has the hands-on experience necessary to guide NASA into the next phase of its mission. We look forward to interacting with Garver and Bolden as they make decisions about the next steps toward a spacefaring future .”

Perm Solvency NASA remains necessary for difficult activities even with private development in spaceLeahy 6 (Bart, National Space Society “Space Access: The Private Investment vs. Public Funding Debate” http://www.space.com/2401-space-access-private-investment-public-funding-debate.html)

What is fuelling this libertarian streak in the space advocacy community? For starters, NASA has been struggling to get the Shuttle returned to flight, while small private ventures like Rutan's success with SpaceShipOne in 2004 have generated excitement in a way the Vision for Space Exploration has not. It should be noted, however, that advocates continue to lobby Congress to support the Vision, partially out of loyalty, partially from an understanding that NASA can still do things that smaller operators like Scaled Composites or SpaceX cannot do--yet. Even the large aerospace companies--who most keenly felt Rutan's barbs--had to admit that NASA has not been particularly inspiring. John Stevens from Lockheed-Martin Space Systems expressed concern that the current national space program has failed to inspire young people. He lamented the fact that "there's no excitement in NASA manned programs." Art Stephenson, Sector Vice President, Space Exploration Systems, Northrup-Grumman, admitted, "we don't always pick the hard thing." Stephenson said that NASA is risk-averse because the voting public does not want to lose another astronaut, and that the risk-averse nature of the program is the biggest stumbling block to inspiring an environment of development or inspiration. Even Bill Nye the Science Guy remarked that "It's easy to bust NASA's chops." NASA's Changing Role The conventional wisdom among the NASA/prime contractor community is that government has to plow the way first, and then businesses can take over--a sentiment that was echoed by both John Eldon Vice President and Program Manager, for Boeing's Constellation program and NASA's Deputy Director Shana Dale. However, some advocates believe the time for businesses to take over space operations is now. According to space policy consultant Jim Muncy, the $500 million Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program represents a breakthrough in NASA thinking about space operations because it really offers the private sector a chance to do what only Russia does now: resupply the International Space Station. Muncy cautioned, however, that private entrepreneurs need to prove their abilities through success first. Prior to the award of COTS, no small aerospace company out of the current group of aspirants has yet launched a payload to orbit. NASA has also opened up its development process to private and academic innovation by sponsoring the Centennial Challenges, echoing the prizes that built early aviation and, of course, the X-Prize. The latest Centennial Challenge--the Lunar Lander Analog--will be administered by the X-Prize Foundation in October of this year. That Challenge will occur during the X-Prize Cup in Las Cruces, New Mexico, where Diamandis and company will be presiding over the latest round of suborbital tourist hopefuls as well as rocket-powered aircraft races. The State of New Mexico itself has passed legislation to build a $225 million spaceport to provide a base for space tourism companies when they finally open for business. With multiple private events like this happening, it is hard for advocates to repress the belief that privately funded spaceflight is just around the corner. Entrepreneurs' Big Dreams Orbital spaceflight is not the only place where the new entrepreneurs have set their sights. SpaceX's President Elon Musk indicated that he eventually wants to send people to the Moon and Mars. Space Adventures, famous for sending Dennis Tito and two other space tourists to the International Space Station, is planning to sell a flight around the Moon for $100 million by 2010. Meanwhile, in another part of ISDC, space law lecturers were discussing the best way to secure private property rights on lunar resources when a private landing happens. To settle that argument, lawyer Bill White suggested that someone should "just do it." And Peter Diamandis suggested that Mars itself could and would be settled by private citizens before NASA. He believes space enthusiasts should "give up on government." Virgin Galactic's Wil Whitehorn indicated that "It [the private sector] can't get hooked on government money." NASA's Clouded Future And yet, in the face of all this independent-mindedness, many of these same people object strongly to the cuts in NASA's space science budget and feel that the CEV, with its Shuttle-derived hardware, is not ambitious enough. Few people blame Administrator Michael Griffin for NASA's troubles, not even the more outspoken pundits like The Case for Mars author Robert Zubrin or Burt Rutan. There is widespread agreement that NASA does not have the resources to do all of the things it has been asked to do, but there is not much confidence that the political process within Washington will give NASA what it needs to succeed. Zubrin blames the lack of ambition at NASA on President Bush, saying that the President put off exploration of the Moon until after he is out of office. Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin expressed concern that, come the next presidential election, the Vision might be scrapped for partisan reasons, leading him to ask, "Do we align [behind the Vision] or do we not?" Once the Shuttle is retired and CEV begins operations, advocates and entrepreneurs will most likely see a mixed space economy: one where government does the more difficult activities, like flying first to the Moon and Mars, while the private sector--both the aerospace giants and the newcomers--slowly builds a respectable commercial presence in Earth orbit. As Jim Muncy put it, "He (Griffin) doesn't want to need us, but NASA can't do it all."

140



Perm solves – NASA still buys the final product while cooperating with private companiesKushner 10 (David, award-winning journalist, Discover, “Launching Into the Era of Private Spaceflight,” 1/5, http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/18-launching-into-age-of-private-spaceflight/article_view?b_start:int=4&-C=)

President Obama made a similar point in a speech at the Kennedy Space Center last April 15. “Now, I recognize that some have said it is unfeasible or unwise to work with the private sector in this way,” he said. “I disagree. The truth is, NASA has always relied on private industry to help design and build the vehicles that carry astronauts to space, from the Mercury capsule that carried John Glenn into orbit nearly 50 years ago to the space shuttle Discovery currently orbiting overhead.” Indeed, companies like Sierra Nevada have been developing space craft and satellites for NASA for decades . But the nature of that relationship is fundamentally changing. In the past NASA was calling the shots: overseeing the design of a system, then owning and operating it once all the parts were complete. Now the roles have changed, with NASA assuming the position of a vested buyer. “This is a partnership, with NASA as the lead investor and the company as the owner and operator of these systems,” Lindenmoyer says. “We’re not providing the specifications for designing these systems. What we are providing is a set of goals and objectives. We’re saying, ‘Hey, we’re a very interested customer, but we’re not trying to stimulate a system that’s good only for government use. We want to see systems that are cost effective, that can open new markets for space, and that are good for the economy.”

Perm Solvency The perm solves – the government will outsource projects to the private sector. The United Space Alliance proves this solves.Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf]

The administration’s plans may not constitute commercial human spaceflight activities as they would be conventionally defined, but they may lead to new relationship between the government and industry, in which the government outsources heretofore government functions to the private sector in the expectation that the private sector can perform those functions more cost-effectively. There is precedent for this approach. In the 1990s, NASA outsourced many shuttle processing functions to the United Space Alliance, a company expressly created for processing the shuttle and supporting shuttle operations . Similarly, the U.S. Air Force structured its expendable launch vehicle into a customer-service provider relationship with the United Launch Alliance, a company expressly created for the process of building and launching the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles. While such a relationship can create greater opportunities for commercialization, it is not truly commercial in the sense of NSPD-3. Government controls final decisions about each program and remains the dominant customer and ultimate source of capital , bringing with it the distorting effects of a monopsonistic market. Additionally, such an approach risks the general loss of government skills and knowledge, particularly in systems integration, which results in government becoming a poor buyer of such goods and services. Should the administration’s approach evolve into this outsourcing model, policymakers will have to tread carefully to balance their obligations to ensure that the taxpayers get the most value for each dollar spent and their desires to maximize the potential for a truly commercial market to evolve.

A hybrid of NASA and the private sector stand the best chance of mission success in coming yearsCarberry 10 (C.A., Artemis, Bake, Executive Director, Explore Mars, Inc., President, Explore Mars, Inc, and Project Leader, ISRU Challenge, Explore Mars, October-November 2010, “The Mars Prize and Private Missions to the Red Planet,” Journal of Cosmology, http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars139.html) TWP

If the United States is going to lead a mission to Mars in the upcoming decades, it will almost certainly be achieved through the use of at least some elements of the new commercial model. However, we have now reached an era where the major question is not whether the private sector has the capacity to get a human mission done, but whether a traditional government program will be able to build enough political momentum to maintain a strong and steady program over more than a decade. This is not to say that an entirely private program is better than the traditional approach or a public-private hybrid version. On the contrary, the hybrid method is probably the path that stands the best chance of mission success, but it is also subject to far more political turbulence concerning funding and the overall balance and focus of the program. In order to alleviate some of this turbulence, there must be more unity between the traditional and the "new space" companies. NASA and the established aerospace community should not fear or dismiss these new approaches to space exploration. The new space companies, and their advocates, need to recognize that there is strong value in how the traditional space community approaches mission design. Both need to think about new and efficient methods of designing missions, whether by reducing launch costs or embracing technologies like in situ resource utilization. Even if the United States government does decide to embrace a true hybrid version or aim for Mars in a more traditional fashion, government should still create an environment that could stimulate a major private effort. If a Virgle-like consortium or a group of billionaires start seriously considering the feasibility of a private mission, that would be a good time to create major tax incentives or a tax-free prize as suggested. While NASA should play a substantial role in space exploration in the next few decades, finding ways to empower the private sector to also play a substantial role in exploration should be considered a vital goal of United States space policy.

141

http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars139.html


Perm Solvency Perm – do the CP. It’s already Official US policy to cooperate with the private sector. National Space Society 7, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NH

When President Bush signed the Commercial Space Launch Act in December 2004, he recognized this bold new commercial space environment’s genesis. On January 6, 2005 the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued an all-encompassing and newly formulated “U.S. Space Transportation Policy”.46 The President’s policy provides tremendous executive support for the new commercial space transportation industry. That policy section appears below: The United States Government is committed to encouraging and facilitating a viable U.S. commercial space transportation industry that supports U.S. space transportation goals, benefits the U.S. economy, and is internationally competitive. Toward that end, United States Government departments and agencies shall: a) Purchase commercially available U.S. space transportation products and services to the maximum extent possible, consistent with mission requirements and applicable law; b) Provide a timely and responsive regulatory environment for licensing commercial space launch and reentry activities; c) Maintain, subject to periodic review and the competitiveness of U.S. industry, the liability risk-sharing regime for U.S. commercial space transportation activities set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended (49 USC, Subtitle IX, Chapter 701), including provisions for indemnification by the United States Government; d) Refrain from conducting activities with commercial applications that preclude, deter, or compete with U.S. commercial space transportation activities, unless required by national security; e) Involve the U.S. private sector in the design and development of space transportation capabilities to meet United States Government needs; f) Provide stable and predictable access to the Federal space launch bases and ranges, and other government facilities and services, as appropriate, for commercial purposes on a direct-cost basis, as defined in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended. The United States Government reserves the right to use such facilities and services on a priority basis to meet national security and critical civil mission requirements; g) Encourage private sector and state and local government investment and participation in the development and improvement of space infrastructure, including non-Federal launch and reentry sites; and h) Provide for the private sector retention of technical data rights in acquiring space transportation capabilities, limited only to the extent necessary to meet United States Government needs . 2) The Secretary of Transportation shall license and have safety oversight responsibility for commercial launch and reentry operations and for operation of non-Federal launch and reentry sites, as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended, and Executive Order 12465. The Secretary of Transportation shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other United States Government departments and agencies, as appropriate. a) The Secretaries of Transportation and Defense shall establish common public safety requirements and other common standards, as appropriate, taking into account launch vehicle type and concept of operation, for launches from Federal and non-Federal launch sites. The Secretaries of Transportation and Defense shall coordinate these requirements with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and other departments and agencies as appropriate. 3) The Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation shall encourage, facilitate, and promote U.S. commercial space transportation activities, including commercial human space flight. A senior administration official said the policy is designed to encourage entrepreneurs and to guarantee new companies a fair competition with the established aerospace companies when they are ready to play. The official said having the president make the decision on a new heavy-lift launch vehicle is more a statement that the decision is of national importance, not a slight to the Pentagon or NASA. "The president is recognizing the fact that the best of our system is the private investment and private development of commercial capabilities of all types," the official said. "That is hopefully going to grow and bloom out here." 47“To exploit space to the fullest extent requires a fundamental transformation in U.S. space transportation capabilities and infrastructure. In that regard, the United States Government must capitalize on the entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S. private sector, which offers new approaches and technology innovation in U.S. space transportation, options for enhancing space exploration activities, and opportunities to open new commercial markets, including public space travel. “Further, dramatic improvements in the reliability, responsiveness, and cost of space transportation would have a profound impact on the ability to protect the Nation, explore the solar system, improve lives, and use space for commercial purposes. While there are both technical and budgetary obstacles to achieving such capabilities in the near term, a sustained national commitment to developing the necessary technologies can enable a decision in the future to develop such capabilities.” - U.S. Space Transportation Policy

Perm – do both. A government partnership is key to SSP. National Space Society 7, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?

142


sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NH

A public/private corporation like Comsat, or Sunsat would probably have to be chartered to initiate SSP construction. Would a fully private consortium have built Hoover Dam or the Transcontinental Railroad alone without subsidy? No, such a massive project as SunSat would seem to dictate a public/private corporation. The majestic and mind boggling Transcontinental Railroad is just one example of that well worn legislative path.97 Here is a small excerpt from that colorful history: The Excursion Train Rounding Cape Horn At The Head Of The Great American Canon, With A View Of The South Fork Of The American River, Where Gold Was First Discovered In 1848. ... From Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, April 27, 1878 “Right of way was granted through the public lands to the extent of 200 feet in width on each side of the track, and a grant of land in the amount of ten alternate section5s per mile on each side of the road within the limits of 20 miles on each side of the road, not previously sold or reserved, at the time ... “Upon the completion of each 20 consecutive miles of railroad,... patents to the granted sections were to be issued. “It also provided for at subsidy in bonds of $16,000 per mile between the Missouri River and the base of the Rocky Mountains; $48,000 per mile for the distance of 150 miles through the mountain range; .... So the process to create such a congressionally chartered corporation, the SunSat Act,98 is well understood. This was the same legislative tool used to create Comsat, an earlier congressionally chartered corporation (1962). The SSPW has a draft of this legislation online. Michael Schwaal, an energy economist with Arlington, VA-based Energy Ventures, pointed out that “there is not much enthusiasm in the U.S. government for space based solar power”, adding that NASA is not the best agency to take up the cause.99 The energy investment community and the SSPW certainly agrees with that observation. The proper course, perhaps the only course, is a congressionally chartered corporation, such as SunSat.

Perm Solvency Perm solves – NASA leadership is necessary for approval by the government and its citizensAldridge 4 (Edward et al, Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, at the Department of Defense, “A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover,” Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf)

The U.S. government need not shoulder the entire cost for implementation of the vision. The Commission believes there will be significant private sector and international investment, if the recommendations made herein are adopted. For example, we are persuaded that the award of significant monetary “prizes” tied directly to the vision plan will spark entrepreneurial investment globally and accelerate the development of technologies and systems that enable travel to the Moon and Mars. In our hearings, the Commission also heard from state governments that are prepared to invest in America’s space infrastructure, if those investments can be appropriately tied to their own economic growth. Proper coordination with other nations will also yield alignment of missions for mutual scientific advantage and will bring cost savings that benefit all parties. America’s direct financial investment should be designed to leverage all such private and public investments. These monies, when added to what the federal government can afford, will indeed get us to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The real question is not whether current levels of federal investment alone are adequate, but how can we best recruit and coordinate a larger team in support of the plan? (3) Credibility. Support for this endeavor must come with a commitment from NASA – and all its partners – to good stewardship. Above all, the space exploration vision is neither sustainable nor affordable unless NASA’s leadership of the exploration vision is deemed credible by the public and Congress. NASA will continue to operate under a bright light of scrutiny. They must embrace best practices of program management, certainly from the public sector, but also from the private sector. At all levels, NASA must be relentlessly innovative and institutionally nimble enough to embrace good ideas arriving from any direction, especially from outside the proverbial box. NASA’s workforce, the women and men of storied accomplishments and can-do skills, must embrace change with a passion. Infallibility cannot not be made a precondition of employment in a mission this hard and this urgent. But NASA’s every action must be disciplined, professional, and extraordinarily transparent. Budgets must be honored, schedules and performance milestones successfully met, and safety treasured. Such stewardship provides the foundational support for institutional credibility. Such credibility will make NASA an apt trustee for our nation’s bold ambitions for human exploration. Further, preserving credibility requires an unyielding commitment to safety, yet clarity regarding risk. Spaceflight is difficult, hazardous, and confronted by enormous distances, at least in human terms. Despite extensive safety precautions, during its 144 human space missions the United States has lost 17 astronauts. The pursuit of discovery is a risky business, and it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. Astronauts know this and accept the risk; the American people and its leaders also need to understand and accept that space flight is not easy or routine. The culture of risk taking is fundamentally different in an entrepreneurial community than in government. To galvanize public support, the government must be candid about the risks associated with space exploration. While the public does not tolerate incompetence or dishonesty, they do accept that risk pervades life itself. If not, we’d never care for the ill – or get into our cars and drive to work or school. First of all, NASA and its partners must implement robust safety precautions. But NASA, its partners, and the public must also acknowledge that our bold resolve to return to the Moon and travel to Mars cannot be drained of all risk. Finally, the government’s credibility as a partner will also hinge on its commitment to reduce market and regulatory risk, and implement meaningful incentives for private sector investment in space ventures. Several financial investors testified with a common metaphor: our government should act like a tenant, rather than a landlord. NASA, they concede, is certainly the anchor tenant in implementing the vision, but the public owns the vision and the three imperatives – sustainability, affordability, and credibility – will require both public and private investment.

Perm solves – private companies are dependent on NASA to sustain the industryAldridge 4 (Edward et al, Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, at the Department of Defense, “A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover,” Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/60736main_M2M_report_small.pdf)

(1) Relationship to the Private Sector. Implementation of the space exploration vision must be built around several core management principles and comprehensively internalized throughout NASA. Most crucial is a significant shift regarding NASA’s relations with the private sector. The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become a primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey. One of the challenges we face is to find commercial rewards and incentives in space. Creating these rewards is an indispensable part of making this partnership work in the right way. It will signal a major change in the way NASA deals with the private sector, and the Commission believes that NASA should do all it can to create, nurture, and sustain this new industry. This should include efforts specifically tailored to small, entrepreneurial firms, as well as established larger firms. Each can do things the other cannot. Both are essential contributors. Today an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government-funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades – if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this – an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space. This new space industry will reduce the cycle-time for critical technology innovation. It will immeasurably augment NASA’s ability to explore the universe. What is impossible today will, in time, be commonplace. What is inherently governmental today will also change with time, especially if public mission objectives (e.g., to re-supply the International Space Station) are intentionally allowed to intersect and support wholly unrelated commercial opportunities, such as the development of launch technology in support of space tourism. We cannot overemphasize the impact a transformed NASA will have on the economy at large, if NASA truly commits itself to this new relationship. The Commission heard repeated and persuasive testimony that NASA could squeeze

143


so much more than it currently does from its taxpayer investment. If it does so, NASA will forge a truly effective engine for innovation and discovery. To the extent possible, NASA should establish performance-oriented goals and then allow the private sector to compete aggressively to achieve mission objectives. Doing so will allow us to do more scientific work in space sooner, reduce government investment, and make long-term goals more affordable. The Commission believes that the private sector is willing and capable of providing the initial boost into low-Earth orbit for the payloads associated with the vision. To foster the continued development of this emerging market, the Commission believes that NASA should procure all of its low-Earth orbit launch services competitively on the commercial market. Fortunately, many of the laws and statutes to accomplish this are already on the books. The Commission also realizes that the launch of human crews requires extraordinary care and will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term. NASA must begin not only to utilize private sector launch enterprises more systematically, its exploration architecture must systematically support private sector capabilities that will make it possible to sustain operations in space. Over time, missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond will test various methods for finding commercial value in space, including use of in situ or space resources. Collecting and transmitting energy to re-power satellites, mining mineral resources, conducting new materials research, or low gravity manufacturing: the public advanced these and many more ideas to us.

AT: Space Tourism The private sector alone cannot do space tourism – government funds are necessary.Sterner 10 [Eric, national security and aerospace consultant, has held senior Congressional staff positions as the lead Professional Staff Member for defense policy on the House Armed Services Committee and as Professional Staff Member and Staff Director for the House Science Committee’s Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, served in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and as Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning at NASA, served as Vice President for Federal Services at TerreStar Networks Inc., and as a national security analyst at JAYCOR and National Security Research Inc., Marshall Institute, April, “Worthy of a Great Nation? NASA’s Change of Strategic Direction” http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf]

The greatest potential for market growth may come from space tourism. Since 2001, 7 private individuals have traveled to the International Space Station, paying between $20- $50 million per person to collectively spend 83 days in space.29 That represents an aggregate commercial demand of up to $350 million for access to LEO over a decade, not likely enough demand to warrant significant private investment in the provision of human spaceflight services to LEO, particularly given the extraordinary costs associated with providing those services. Private capital does not usually chase negative returns. Indeed, the only reason such a market exists is that the governments that own and operate the International Space Station and associated launch vehicles were willing to make the capability created by their taxpayers available to private, paying customers at the margins. They did not recover the full costs of creating such capabilities in the sales price of the private tickets and there was never much private capital at risk in exploiting this market . (Nobody has assessed the opportunity cost paid by those taxpayers to make such capabilities available for private gain). Without this massive government intervention in the market, the supply and demand curves for private human access to space would not have crossed.

Government partnerships are best.National Space Society 7, Chapter of an ongoing series of Space Transportation, originally published in 2005 but then was edited again in march of 2007, cites studies and developments of space policy analysts and scholars, “Chapter 5 Space Transportation,” http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=49&ved=0CE0QFjAIOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nss.org%2Fsettlement%2Fssp%2Flibrary%2FSSPW205.pdf&ei=tO4ATtqVMYfGswbUh-meDQ&usg=AFQjCNFkeSbTnqLCRYysotInBhHVvJ87fQ&sig2=3YY0ip6OEd0dw1Mt9lK9) NH

Recent work aimed at developing and operating low-cost space vehicles have shown sharply reduced space transportation costs at higher flight rates. This work improves the field of space transportation bid candidates for SSP, both by improving the prospects of low launch costs, and in demonstrating to those responsible for energy security, SSP's near term feasibility under a comprehensive development policy as the President’s Space Policy has committed our government to supporting. The emerging commercial space transportation market is currently experiencing tremendous vitality. We must encourage this trend, as the President’s Space Policy recognizes. We cannot permit another market bottom in the cyclical aerospace marketplace. New industries and markets will be created thereby. Our space transportation market is prepared now to support the charter of SunSat Corporation and build an SSP demonstration satellite. The President’s Space Policy has committed our government to supporting “the entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S. private sector, which offers new approaches and technology innovation in U.S. space transportation, options for enhancing space exploration activities, and opportunities to open new commercial markets, including public space travel.” All that is required is for the government to share ownership with the private sector and allow the market to grow. The many sectors of the economy that depend on and are demanding more clean low cost baseload energy would eagerly welcome the new competition SSP can provide. The space transportation capabilities SSP’s immense market and promise require would be more than welcomed by the space transportation community. The innovative materials and techniques developed can build new businesses and revitalize others, as well.

Funding for NASA is still necessary – it has fueled economic growth and improved society. NSS, 10 (April 15, 2010, Nation Space Society, “Obama’s speech on Space Exploration in the 21st Century,” http://blog.nss.org/?p=1783) NH

So that is the next chapter we can write here at NASA. We will partner with industry. We will invest in cutting edge research and technology. We will set far-reaching milestones – while providing the resources to pass them. And step by step, we will push the boundaries not only of where we can go but what we can do. In short, fifty years after the creation of NASA, our goal is no longer just a destination to reach. Our goal is the capacity for people to work and learn, operate and live safely beyond the Earth for extended periods of time, ultimately in ways that are more sustainable and even indefinite. And in fulfilling this task, we will not only extend humanity’s reach in space, we will strengthen America’s leadership here on Earth. I’ll close by saying this. I know that some Americans have asked a question that’s particularly apt on Tax Day: Why spend money on NASA at all? Why spend money solving problems in space when we do not lack for problems to solve here on the ground? Our country is still reeling from the worst economic turmoil we’ve known in generations. And we also have a massive structural deficit to close in the coming years. But we know that this is a false choice. Yes, we need to fix our economy. Yes, we need to close our deficits. But for pennies on the dollar, the space program has fueled jobs and entire industries. For pennies on the dollar, the space program has improved our lives, advanced our society, strengthened our economy, and inspired generations of Americans. And I have no doubt that NASA can continue to fulfill this role . But that is why it is so essential that we pursue a new course and that we revitalize NASA and its mission – not just with dollars, but with clear aims, and a larger purpose. Little more than 40 years ago, astronauts descended the nine-rung ladder of the Lunar Module called Eagle, and allowed their feet to touch the dusty surface of the Earth’s only Moon. It was the culmination of a daring and perilous gambit, of an endeavor that pushed the boundaries of our knowledge; of our technological prowess; of our very capacity as human beings to solve problems. It was not just the greatest achievement in NASA’s history. It was one of the greatest achievements in human history. The question for us now is whether that was the beginning of something or the end of something. I choose to believe it was only the beginning.

144


AT: Coercion Turn – Libertarianism guarantees atrocities – State is key to protect freedom Locke 5 (Robert, Writer for The American Conservative, TAC, http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html)JFS

Libertarian naïveté extends to politics . They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny. Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perver sity of human desires they propose to unleash . They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more. This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives should know better.

Turn – Market fundamentalism collapses freedom and economy Kirk 88 (Russel, Political Theorist, MA @ Duke University, 5/28, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/A-Dispassionate-Assessment-of-Libertarians)American industry and commerce on a large scale could not survive for a single year, without the protections extended by government at its several levels. Rousseau's Disciples. 'To begin with unlimited freedom," Dosto e vsky wrote, "is to end with unlimited despotism." The worst enemies of enduring freedom for all may be certain folk who demand incessantly more liberty for themselves . This is true of a country's economy, as of other matters. America's economic success is based upon an old foundation of moral habits, social customs and convictions, much historical experience, and commonsensical political understanding. Our structure of free enterprise owes much to the conservative understanding of property and production e x pounded by Alexander Hamilton - the adversary of the libertarians of his day. But our structure of free enterprise owes nothing at all to the destructive concept of liberty that devastated Europe during the era of the French Revolution - that is, to the r u inous impossible freedom preached by Jean Jacques Rousseau. Our 20th century libertarians are disciples of Rousseau's notion of human nature and Rousseau's political doctrines. Have I sufficiently distinguished between libertarians and conservatives? Here I have been trying to draw a line of demarcation, not to refute libertarian arguments; I shall turn to the latter task in a few minutes.>

No Link – The ends justify the means – coercion is key to survival West 10 (Thomas, Professor of Politics @ University of Dallas, 8/30, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/08/The-Economic-Principles-of-America-s-Founders-Property-Rights-Free-Markets-and-Sound-Money)

<This potential and sometimes actual conflict between natural rights was also acknowledged during the Founding era. The property rights of the individual cannot always be respected when the survival of the community is at stake—for example, in a time of foreign invasion . In an 1810 letter, Jefferson recalls examples of grave but necessary government inroads on property rights during the Revolutionary War: When, in the battle of Germantown, General Washington’s army was annoyed from Chew’s house, he did not hesitate to plant his cannon against it, although the property of a citizen. When he besieged Yorktown, he leveled the suburbs, feeling that the laws of property must be postponed to the safety of the nation.[16]Would the Founders’ principles lead to the conclusion, then, that socialism or some other scheme of government redistribution of income could be the most just economic order? Using government coercion to redistribute property certainly violates the natural right to possess property, but what if this policy is the best way to enable everyone to exercise their right to acquire it? Would that not be in greater conformity with natural right than the starvation or deprivation of the poor ?>

Extinction outweighs any moral obligation.Nye 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; “Nuclear Ethics” pg. 45-46) JFS

Is there any end that could justify a nuclear war that threatens the survival of the species? Is not all-out nuclear war just as self contradictory in the real world as pacifism is accused of being? Some people argue that " we are required to undergo gross injustice that will break many souls sooner than ourselves be the authors of mass murder."73 Still others say that "when a person makes survival the highest value, he has declared that there is nothing he will not betray. But for a civilization to sacrifice itself makes no sense since there are not survivors to give meaning to the sacrifical [sic] act. In that case, survival may be worth betrayal ." Is it possible to avoid the "moral calamity of a policy like unilateral disarmament that forces us to choose between being dead or red (while increasing the chances of both)"?74 How one judges the issue of ends can be affected by how one poses the questions. If one asks "what is worth a billion lives (or the survival of the species)," it is natural to resist contemplating a positive answer. But suppose one asks, "is it possible to imagine any threat to our civilization and values that would justify raising the threat to a billion lives from one in ten thousand to one in a thousand for a specific period?" Then there are several plausible answers, including a democratic way of life and cherished freedoms that give meaning to life beyond mere survival. When we pursue several values simultaneously , we face the fact that they often conflict and that we face difficult tradeoffs. If we make one value absolute in priority, we are likely to get that value and little else. Survival is a necessary condition for the enjoyment of other values , but that does not make it sufficient . Logical priority does not make it an absolute value. Few people act as though survival were an absolute value in their personal lives, or they would never enter an automobile. We can give survival of the species a very high priority without giving it the paralyzing status of an absolute value . Some degree of risk is unavoidable if individuals or societies are to avoid paralysis and enhance the quality of life beyond mere survival. The degree of that risk is a justifiable topic of both prudential and moral reasoning.

145

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/A-Dispassionate-Assessment-of-Libertarians

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html)JFS


AT: Coercion No Link – some coercion inevitable – even libertarianism is coercive LaFollette 79 (Hugh, Chair in Ethics @ University of South Florida, http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/libertar.htm, 194-206)

Consequently, everyone's life is not, given the presence of negative general rights and negative general duties, free from the interference of others. The "mere" presence of others imposes duties on each of us, it limits everyone's freedom . In fact, these restrictions are frequently extensive. For example, in the previously described case I could have all of the goods I wanted; I could take what I wanted, when I wanted. To say that such actions are morally or legally impermissible significantly limits my freedom, and my "happiness," without my consent. Of course I am not saying these restrictions are bad. Obviously they aren't. But it does show that the libertarian fails to achieve his major objective, namely, to insure that an individual's freedom cannot be limited without his consent. The libertarian's own moral constraints limit each person's freedom without consent.7This is even more vividly seen when we look at an actual historical occurrence. In the nineteenth century American slaveholders were finally legally coerced into doing what they were already morally required to do: free their slaves. In many cases this led to the slave owners' financial and social ruin: they lost their farms, their money, and their power. Of course they didn't agree to their personal ruin; they didn't agree to this restriction on their freedom. Morally they didn't have to consent; it was a remedy long overdue. Even the libertarian would agree. The slave holders' freedom was justifiably restricted by the presence of other people; the fact that there were other persons limited their acceptable alter natives. But that is exactly what the libertarian denies . Freedom, he claims, cannot be justifiably restricted without consent. In short, the difficulty in this: the libertarian talks as if there can be no legitimate non-consensual limitations on freedom, yet his very theory involves just such limitations. Not only does this appear to be blatantly inconsistent, but even if he could avoid this inconsistency, there appears to be no principled way in which he can justify only his theory's non-consensual limitations on freedom.

Turn – Libertarianism only benefits the rich and powerful – turns value to lifePartridge 4 Ernest Research Associate in Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, and a lecturer-consultant in Applied Ethics and Environmental Ethics. With Liberty for Some Environmental Philosophy Prentice Hall, 2004).

Thus libertarianism does not qualify as a just system for all members of society . On the contrary, as we noted above, it is a Nietzschean "master morality," reflecting the preferences and protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful. Complaints against "big government" and "over-regulation," though often justified, also issue from the privileged who are frustrated at finding that their quest for still greater privileges at the expense of their community are curtailed by a government which, ideally, represents that community. Pure food and drug laws curtail profits and mandate tests as they protect the general public. And environmental protection regulations "internalize" the costs of pollution, thus properly burdening the corporations and their investors as a direct result of these regulations relieving the unconsenting public of the previously externalized costs. The libertarian trust in "the wisdom of the free market" is likewise attractive to the wealthy and powerful , since one's involvement with markets -- the libertarians' preferred instrument of social adaptation and change -- is proportional to one's access to cash. The Golden Rule - "those with the gold get to rule" - is one of the first principles of both "the master morality" and of libertarianism .

Perm: do both solves – France proves that libertarian communism becomes a diverse movement that works together to spark revolutions and engage in sociopolitical activism.Berry 8 (David, Senior Lecturer in European Studies in the Department of Politics, History, and International Relations at Loughborough University, interdisciplinary masters in French studies at Sussex, Ph.D. in Philosophy in French Labour Studies at Sussex, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, Change the World Without Taking Power? The Libertarian Communist Tradition in France Today, April 2008, Volume 16 Issue 1 - http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2ff4b976-3960-4d61-894e-32a0ab25b687%40sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=18, SP)

In 2002 the left-wing journal Contretemps organized a conference in Paris on the theme: ‘Change the world without taking power? New libertarians, new communists’ (Corcuff & Lowy, 2003a).1 The starting point was not just the cohabitation of Marxists and anarchists in the present-day ‘alterglobalisation’ or anti-capitalist movement, but also the fact that they seem to some extent to be exerting a mutual influence over each other and that numerous thematic cross-overs are discernible. The most prominent examples cited (Corcuff & Lowy, 2003b) are associated with different forms of autonomist Marxism (the variant of Marxism most often regarded as being closest to anarchism): the Zapatistas, Holloway’s (2005a) ideas on ‘changing the world without taking power’ and the notion of ‘counter-power’ or ‘anti-power’ discussed in different ways by Holloway, Hardt & Negri (2000) and Bensayag & Sztulwark (2000).2 The editors of Contretemps share the Cohn-Bendit brothers’ impatience with those who dwell on the ‘false and uninteresting conflict’ between Marx and Bakunin (and their heirs) (Cohn-Bendit & Cohn-Bendit, 1968, p. 18) and express the wish to go beyond it, looking back on the First International not, as most historians have done, as an example of conflict between the two dominant currents in West European labour movements but as a positive example of fruitful cooperation: A democratic, multiple, diverse, internationalist movement, where distinct if not opposed political options came together in a process of reflection and action over a period of several years, playing a dynamic role in the first great modern proletarian revolution. An International where libertarians and marxists were able—despite conflicts—to work together and to take part in joint actions. (Corcuff & Lowy, 2003b, p. 9). The focus of this article is thus what has come to be known as the ‘libertarian communist’ tradition in France, and in particular the organization ‘Alternative Libertaire’ (AL). An introductory section traces the historical development of this ideological current and argues that in France it has two roots: firstly, a tendency within the historic anarchist movement which attempted to shake off the negative stereotypes associated with anarchism; secondly, various post-war, critical or non-Leninist Marxist groups and individuals (notably Daniel Guerin) who were trying to grapple with the perceived ideological and political shortcomings of classical Marxism. The paper looks at the confluence of these two traditions during the 1970s and 1980s and the creation in 1991 of AL. Having established the ideological nature and strategic aims of AL and determined what distinguishes it from other anarchisms and socialisms, the paper examines the group’s involvement since its creation in ‘the social movement’ (i.e. the plethora of new social movements and single issue campaigns of various kinds as well as trade union organizations, especially Solidaire, Unitaire, Democratique (SUD). In attempting to answer the three questions raised above the paper analyses AL’s conception of ‘revolution’ in the 21st century (one which rejects both the insurrectionary myths of the past and the slide into social democratic reformism) and AL’s claims that ‘libertarian communism’ offers an original ideological framework and a distinctive approach to sociopolitical activism.

AT: Coercion Alt fails – Libertarianism is no different from liberalist theories and liberalism is key to a functioning society

146

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=2ff4b976-3960-4d61-894e-32a0ab25b687@sessionmgr4&vid=2&hid=18


Partridge 4 Ernest Research Associate in Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, and a lecturer-consultant in Applied Ethics and Environmental Ethics. With Liberty for Some Environmental Philosophy Prentice Hall, 2004).

The Libertarian "minimalist state," designed to protect fundamental rights of "life, liberty and property," may not be all that 'minimalist.' To the libertarians, the only legitimate function of government is to protect life, liberty and property -- which is to say, the only legitimate public institutions are the military, the police, and the courts. But the boundaries of even these functions are not clearly defined, nor do the full implications of these "rights" end where the libertarians might expect. Arguably, the maintenance of "civic friendship" and the "well ordered society," promoted by such liberal contractarian theorists as John Rawls, falls under the libertarian criteria. For it may be the case that "life, liberty and property," can be secured only if society is "well-ordered," and "civic friendship" obtains; that is, when the critical mass of citizens recognize their common stake in a "shared fate," when, in a word, they have a well-founded loyalty to their contract-state. But such a society must be a community as described by liberal theory, and not the aggregate of "utility maximizing egoists" envisioned by the free-market libertarians. Again, we ask, how secure are "life, liberty and property" in the failed communities of Bosnia and Ulster?

1AR Ext. – Aff = Prerequisite The aff is a prerequisite to libertarianism and the libertarian project is futile: it inevitably reverts back to liberalism.Partridge 4 Ernest Research Associate in Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside, and a lecturer-consultant in Applied Ethics and Environmental Ethics. With Liberty for Some Environmental Philosophy Prentice Hall, 2004).

Wealth can be acquired and maintained only in a system wherein the most and the least advantaged share a communal loyalty in the social system under which that wealth was acquired. Such a system would presumably contain "social safety nets" to ensure a minimal amount of support and care for the

147


least fortunate. In addition, the system might be expected to support education, art and culture, so that all citizens might acquire a shared loyalty to community values. Otherwise, the least advantaged may no longer feel that they have a stake in the system, whereupon the wealth of the advantaged may become vulnerable to revolution . Thus, "through the back door" of enlightened self interest, returns the "welfare state" that the libertarians believed they had evicted through the front door. In short, it is not at all clear that the "minimal state" required to secure the libertarian rights to life, liberty and property is all that "minimal." In fact, the liberal would insist, his activist government agenda must be adopted if these libertarian rights are to be secure.

1AR Ext. – Economic Collapse Public investment key to economic growth – private alone failsKrugman 8 (Paul, Prof of Economic and International Affairs @ Princeton University, 12/1, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

One more thing: Fiscal expansion will be even better for America’s future if a large part of the expansion takes the form of public investment — of building roads, repairing bridges and developing new technologies, all of which make the nation richer in the long run.Should the government have a permanent policy of running large budget deficits? Of course not. Although public debt isn’t as bad a thing as many people believe — it’s basically money we owe to ourselves — in the long run the government, like private individuals, has to match its spending to its income.But right now we have a fundamental shortfall in private spending: consumers are rediscovering the virtues of saving at the same moment that businesses, burned by past excesses and hamstrung by the troubles of the financial system, are cutting back on investment. That gap will eventually close, but until it does, government spending must take up the slack. Otherwise, private investment, and the economy as a whole, will plunge even more.The bottom line, then, is that people who think that fiscal expansion today is bad for future generations have got it exactly wrong. The best course of action, both for today’s workers and for their children, is to do whatever it takes to get this economy on the road to recovery.

148

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/01/opinion/01krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


1AR Ext. – Extinction O/Ws Discussing existential risks is key to prevent neglectful attitudes toward them.Bostrom 2 (Nick Professor of Philosophy and Global Studies at Yale.. www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html.)JFS

Existential risks have a cluster of features that make it useful to identify them as a special category: the extreme magnitude of the harm that would come from an existential disaster; the futility of the trial-and-error approach; the lack of evolved biological and cultural coping methods; the fact that existential risk dilution is a global public good; the shared stakeholdership of all future generations; the international nature of many of the required countermeasures; the necessarily highly speculative and multidisciplinary nature of the topic; the subtle and diverse methodological problems involved in assessing the probability of existential risks; and the comparative neglect of the whole area. From our survey of the most important existential risks and their key attributes, we can extract tentative recommendations for ethics and policy: We need more research into existential risks – detailed studies of particular aspects of specific risks as well as more general investigations of associated ethical, methodological, security and policy issues. Public awareness should also be built up so that constructive political debate about possible countermeasures becomes possible. Now, it’s a commonplace that researchers always conclude that more research needs to be done in their field. But in this instance it is really true. There is more scholarly work on the life-habits of the dung fly than on existential risks. Since existential risk reduction is a global public good, there should ideally be an institutional framework such that the cost and responsibility for providing such goods could be shared fairly by all people. Even if the costs can’t be shared fairly, some system that leads to the provision of existential risk reduction in something approaching optimal amounts should be attempted. The necessity for international action goes beyond the desirability of cost-sharing, however. Many existential risks simply cannot be substantially reduced by actions that are internal to one or even most countries. For example, even if a majority of countries pass and enforce national laws against the creation of some specific destructive version of nanotechnology, will we really have gained safety if some less scrupulous countries decide to forge ahead regardless? And strategic bargaining could make it infeasible to bribe all the irresponsible parties into subscribing to a treaty, even if everybody would be better off if everybody subscribed [14,42].

149

http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html.)JFS


150