Multilat Adv

Aff

China expanding now -- ASATsChina is expanding ASATs - increasing tensions with the US Dillow, 16 Dillow, Clay, journalist specializing in space and technology, 2016 /20("The real Star Wars: China's military space play," CNBC, 2/20, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/chinas-space-missions-in-2016-tied-to-military-ambitions.html )ski

A sequel to " Star Wars " may arrive sooner than anyone expects , as China funnels vast resources into an outer space program that may stoke new tensions with the U nited St ates . The country plans to launch more than 20 space missions in 2016 , making the year ahead the busiest ever for the nation's rapidly growing space program. After successfully launching 19 missions in

2015, the People's Republic plans a range of civilian and military missions that will test new rockets, launch a space laboratory , hone China's manned spaceflight capability and loft new satellites into orbit — all while furthering plans to bring a habitable space station online by 2022 and put Chinese astronauts on the moon in the mid-2020s. At the same time , the Asian colossus is investing in anti-satellite technologies that would destroy or disable space-based assets in the event of conflict. Considering the fact that the U.S. relies upon satellites for a lot of its intelligence

collection and communication, it's a worrisome trend. And it is exacerbating tensions with U.S. defense officials and security analysts concerned by China's focus on enhancing its military capabilities in space.

The US is worried about China’s ASATS Dillow, 16 Dillow, Clay, journalist specializing in space and technology, 2016 ("The real Star Wars: China's military space play," CNBC, 2/20, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/chinas-space-missions-in-2016-tied-to-military-ambitions.html )ski

Alongside its civilian and scientific space programs , China has invested heavily in anti-satellite

technolog ies that would destroy or disable space-based assets in the event of conflict — weapons like ground-based missiles capable of destroying targets in orbit , as well as experimental lasers and signal jammers that could disable or otherwise "blind" satellites that can be used in a military conflic t . In 2007, China publicly demonstrated one such weapon by launching a ground-based interceptor missile at one of its own defunct satellites in orbit, destroying it (and creating a cloud of dangerous space debris) . The test was largely viewed as a shot across the bow for U.S. military planners that rely heavily on military satellites for everything from navigation and communication to intelligence gathering, weapons targeting and piloting its drone aircra ft. While the Pentagon retains its own means of interfering

with an adversary's satellites in orbit — including ship-based anti-satellite missiles — U .S. military and commercial

interests maintain a far greater presence in orbit and thus have the most assets to lose there. " There are a lot of avenues to go after satellites, and what worries people is that the Chinese are pursuing all of them ," CSIS's Lewis said. "The question becomes: If they're so into peace, why are they building so many weapons?"

Growing Chinese Capabilities threaten the US and causes Instability in space- soon they will be able to destroy every satelliteKeck, 15, Keck, Zachary, managing editor of The National Interest, previously managing editor of The Diplomat (“China's Next Super Weapon Revealed: Satellite Destroyers,” National Interest, 4/15,

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-next-superweapon-revealed-satellite-destroyers-12640 )ski

China will soon be able to destroy every satellite in space , a senior U.S. military official has said. According to Breaking Defense, Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, commander of the 14th Air Force, said this week that China’s amassing formidable anti-satellite capabilities . Raymond claimed that Beijing is already capable of holding every low-orbit satellite at risk, and “soon every satellite in every orbit will be able to be held at risk” by China’s anti -satellite (ASAT) capabilities . Speaking at the 31st Space Symposium in Colorado Springs this week, Raymond also confirmed

that China’s anti-satellite missile test last July was a success . As I reported elsewhere, last July, China claimed it had successfully tested a ballistic missile defense system. However, a week later, the U.S. government revealed that

the test was actually of an anti-satellite missile. (Recommended: 5 Chinese Weapons of War America Should Fear) “ We call

on China to refrain from destabilizing actions—such as the continued development and testing of destructive anti-satellite systems—that threaten the long term security and sustainability of the outer space environment, on which all nations depen d ,” the State Department said at the time, Space News reported. “ The United States continuously looks to ensure its space systems are safe and resilient against emerging space threats.”

US and China in arms race in space – could escalate with ASAT capabilities Davenport, 16 Davenport, Christian, reporter for the Washington Post ("A fight to protect ‘the most valuable real estate in space’," Washington Post, 05/09, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-fight-to-protect-the-most-valuable-real-estate-in-space/2016/05/09/df590af2-1144-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html )ski

Faced with the prospect of hostilities there, defense officials are developing ways to protect exposed satellites floating in orbit and to keep apprised of what an enemy is doing hundreds, if not thousands, of miles above Earth’s surface . They are making satellites more resilient, enabling them to withstand jamming effor t s. And instead of relying only on large and expensive systems,

defense officials plan to send swarms of small satellites into orbit that are much more difficult to target . At the same time, the Pentagon has designated the Air Force secretary a “principal space adviser,” with

authority to coordinate actions in space across the Defense Department. Agencies have begun participating in

war-game scenarios involving space combat at the recently activated Joint Interagency Combined Space Operations Center . The flurry of activity raises the specter of a new technological arms race , this one in space, as nations jockey for advantage. The Pentagon is even developing what is known as the “Space Fence,” which would allow it to better track debris in space. National security officials are not only concerned that missiles could take out their satellites but also that a craft’s equipment could be easily jammed . Potential enemies could “dazzle” sensors, temporarily blinding them, or deploy tiny “parasitic satellites” that attach to host satellites and do their worst. That could lead to soldiers stranded on the battlefield with little means of communication or missiles that would not be able to find their targets.

Space wars highly probable in the squo- multiple warrants Lee Billings 15 ( editor at Scientific American covering space and physics. writes about the intersections of science, technology, and culture for Nature, Nautilus, New Scientist, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, and many other

publications. “War in Space May Be Closer Than Ever” 8/15/16 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/war-in-space-may-be-closer-than-ever/ )ski

His first book, Five Billion Years of Solitude, chronicles the scientific quest to discover other Earth-like planets elsewhere in the universe.The world’s most worrisome military flashpoint is arguably not in the Strait of Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula, Iran, Israel, Kashmir or Ukraine. In fact, it cannot be located on any map of Earth, even though it is very easy to find. To see it, just look up into a clear sky, to the no-man’s-land of Earth orbit, where a conflict is unfolding that is an arms race in all but name.The emptiness of outer space might be the last place you’d expect militaries to vie over contested territory, except that outer space isn’t so empty anymore. About 1,300 active satellites wreathe the globe in a crowded nest of orbits , providing worldwid e communications, GPS navigation , weather forecasting and planetary surveillance. For militaries that rely on some of those satellites for modern warfare, space has become the ultimate high ground, with the U.S. as the undisputed king of the hill. Now , as China and Russia aggressively seek to challenge U.S. superiority in space with ambitious military space programs of their ow n, the power struggle risks sparking a conflict that could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure. And though it might begin in space, such a conflict could easily ignite full-blown war on Earth. The long-simmering tensions are now approaching a boiling point due to several events, including recent and ongoing tests of possible anti-satellite weapons by Chin a and

Russia, as well as last month’s failure of tension-easing talks at the United Nations.Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper echoed the concerns held by many

senior government officials about the growing threat to U.S. satellites, saying that China and Russia are both “developing capabilities to deny access in a conflict,” such as those that might erupt over China’s military activities in the South China Sea or Russia’s in Ukraine. China in particular, Clapper said, has demonstrated “the need to interfere with, damage and destroy” U.S. satellites, referring to a series of Chinese anti-satellite missile tests that began in 20 07 .There are many ways to disable or destroy satellites beyond provocatively blowing them up with missiles. A spacecraft could simply approach a satellite and spray paint over its optics, or manually snap off its communications antennas, or destabilize its orbit. Lasers can be used to temporarily disable or permanently damage a satellite’s components, particularly its delicate sensors , and radio or microwaves can jam or hijack transmissions to or from ground controllers.In response to these possible threats , the Obama administration has budgeted   at least $5 billion to be spent over the next five years to enhance both the defensive and offensive capabilities of the U.S. military space program. The U.S. is also attempting to tackle the problem through diplomacy, although with minimal success; in late July at the United Nations, long-awaited discussions stalled on a European Union-drafted code of conduct for spacefaring nations due to opposition from Russia, China and several other countries including Brazil, India, South Africa and Iran. The failure has placed diplomatic solutions for te growing threat in limbo, likely leading to years of further debate within the UN’s General Assembly.“ The bottom line is the United States does not want conflict in outer space ,” says Frank Rose, assistant secretary of state for arms control, verification and compliance, who has led American diplomatic efforts to prevent a space arms race. The U.S., he says, is willing to work with Russia and China to keep space secure. “But let me make it very clear: we will defend our space assets if attacked.” The prospect of war in space is not new. Fearing Soviet nuclear weapons launched from orbit, the U.S. began testing anti-satellite weaponry in the late 1950s. It even tested nuclear bombs in space before orbital weapons of mass destruction were banned through the United Nation s’ Outer Space Treaty of 1967. After the ban, space-based surveillance became a

crucialcomponent of the Cold War, with satellites serving as one part of elaborate early-warning systems on alert for the deployment or launch of ground-based nuclear weapons . Throughout most of the Cold War, the U.S.S.R. developed and tested “space mines,” self-detonating spacecraft that could seek and destroy U.S. spy satellites by peppering them with shrapnel . In the 1980s, the militarization of space peaked with the Reagan administration’s multibillion-dollar Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed Star Wars, to develop orbital countermeasures against Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles. And in 1985, the U.S. Air Force staged a clear demonstration of its formidable capabilities, when an F-15 fighter jet launched a missile that took out a failing U.S. satellite in low-Earth orbit.Through it all, no full-blown arms race or direct conflicts erupted. According to Michael Krepon, an arms-control expert and co-founder of the Stimson Center think tank in Washington, D.C., that was because both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. realized how vulnerable their satellites were— particularly the ones in “geosynchronous” orbits of about 35,000 kilometers or more. Such satellites effectively hover over one spot on the planet, making them sitting ducks. But because any hostile action against those satellites could easily escalate to a full nuclear exchange on Earth, both superpowers backed down. “Neither one of us signed a treaty about this,” Krepon says. “ We just independently came to the conclusion that our security would be worse off if we went after those satellites, because if one of us did it, then the other guy would, too.”Today, the situation is much more complicated. Low- and high-Earth orbits have become hotbeds of scientific and commercial activity, filled with hundreds upon hundreds of satellites from about 60 different nations. Despite their largely peaceful purposes, each and every satellite is at risk, in part because not all members of the growing club of military space powers are willing to play by the same rules—and they don’t have to, because the rules remain as yet unwritten.Space junk is the greatest threat. Satellites race through space at very high velocities, so the quickest, dirtiest way to kill one is to simply launch something into space to get in its way. Even the impact of an object as small and low-tech as a marble can disable or entirely destroy a billion-dollar satellite. And if a nation uses such a “kinetic” method to destroy an adversary’s satellite, it can easily create even more dangerous debris, potentially cascading into a chain reaction that   transforms Earth orbit into a demolition derby. In 2007 the risks from debris skyrocketed when China launched a missile that destroyed one of its own weather satellites in low-Earth orbit. That test generated a swarm of long-lived shrapnel that constitutes nearly one-sixth of all the radar-trackable debris in orbit. The U. S. responded in kind in 2008, repurposing a ship-launched anti-ballistic missile to shoot down a malfunctioning U.S. military satellite shortly before it tumbled into the atmosphere. That test produced dangerous junk too, though in smaller amounts, and the debris was shorter-lived because it was generated at a much lower altitude.More recently, China has launched what many experts say are additional tests of ground-based a nti-satellite kinetic weapons. None of these subsequent launches have destroyed satellites, but Krepon and other experts say this is because the Chinese are now merely testing to miss, rather than to hit, with the same hostile capability as an end result. The latest test occurred on July 23 of last year. Chinese officials insist the tests’ only purpose is peaceful missile defense and scientific experimentation. But one test in May 2013 sent a missile soaring as high as30,000 kilometers above Earth, approaching the safe haven of strategic geosynchronous satellites.That was a wake-up call, says Brian Weeden, a security analyst and former Air Force officer who studied and helped publicize the Chinese test. “The U.S. came to grips decades ago with the factthat its lower orbit satellites could easily be shot down,” Weeden says. “ Going nearly to geosynchronous made people realize that , holy cow, somebody might actually try to go after the stuff we have up there.”It was no coincidence that shortly after the May 2013 test, the US declassified details of its secret Geosynchronous Space Situational Awareness Program (GSSAP), a planned set of four satellites capable of monitoring the Earth’s high orbits and even rendezvousing with other satellites to inspect them up-c lose. The first two GSSAP spacecraft launched into orbit in July 2014.

“This used to be a black program—something that didn’t even officially exist,” Weeden says. “It was declassified to basically send a message saying, ‘Hey, if you’re doing something funky in and around the geosynchronous belt, we’re going to see.’” An interloper into geosynchronous orbit need not be an explosives-tipped missile to be a security risk—even sidling up to an adversary’s strategic satellites is considered a threat. Which is one reason that potential U.S. adversaries might be alarmed by the rendezvous capabilities of GSSAP and of the U.S. Air Force’s highly maneuverable X-37B robotic space planes.Russia is also developing its own ability to approach, inspect and potentially sabotage or destroy satellites in orbit. Over the past two years, it has included three mysterious payloads in otherwise routine commercial satellite launches, with the latest occurring in March of this year. Radar observations by the U.S. Air Force and by amateur hobbyists revealed that after each commercial satellite was deployed, an additional small object flew far away from the jettisoned rocket booster, only to later turn around and fly back. The objects, dubbed Kosmos-2491, -2499 and -2504, might just be part of an innocuous program developing techniques to service and refuel old satellites, Weeden says, though they could also be meant for more sinister intentions.Treaties offer little assurance Chinese officials maintain that their military activities in space are simply peaceful science experiments, while Russian officials have stayed mostly mum. Both nations could be seen as simply responding to what they see as the U.S.’s clandestine development of potential space weapons. Indeed, the U.S.’s ballistic missile defense systems, its X-37B space planes and even its GSSAP spacecraft, though all ostensibly devoted to maintaining peace, could be easily repurposed into weapons of space war. For years Russia and China have

pushed for the ratification of a legally binding United Nations treaty banning space weapons—a treaty that U.S. officials and outside experts have repeatedly rejected as a disingenuous nonstarter.“The draft treaty from Russia and China seeks to ban the very things that they are so actively pursuing,” Krepon says. “It serves their interests perfectly. They want freedom of action, and they’re covering that with this proposal to ban space weapons.” Even if the treaty was being offered in good faith, Krepon says, “it would be dead on arrival” in Congress and would stand no chance of being ratified. After all, the U.S. wants freedom of action in space, too, and in space no other country has more capability—and thus more to lose.According to Rose, there are three key problems with the treaty. “One, it’s not effectively verifiable, which the Russians and Chinese admit,” he says. “You can’t detect cheating. Two, it is totally silent on the issue of terrestrial anti-satellite weapons, like the ones that China tested in 2007 and again in July 2014. And third, it does not define what a weapon in outer space is.”As an alternative, the U.S. supports a European-led initiative to establish “norms” for proper behavior through the creation of a voluntary International Code of Conduct for Outer Space. This would be a first step, to be followed by a binding agreement. A draft of the code—which Russia and China prevented from being adopted in last month’s UN discussions—calls for more transparency and “confidence-building” between spacefaring nations as a way of promoting the “peaceful exploration and use of outer space.” This, it is hoped, can prevent the generation of more debris and the further development of space weapons. However, like the Russian-Chinese treaty, the code does not exactly define what constitutes a “space weapon.”That haziness poses problems for senior defense officials such as General John Hyten, the head of the U.S. Air Force Space Command. “Is our space-based surveillance system that looks out at the heavens and tracks everything in geosynchronous a weapons system?” he asks. “I think everybody in the world would look at that and say no. But it’s maneuverable, it’s going 17,000 miles per hour, and it has a sensor on board. It’s not a weapon, okay? But would [a treaty’s] language ban our ability to do space-based surveillance? I would hope not!”Is war in space inevitable?

China is building a space arsenal Dillow 16 Dr. Clay Dillow has writes about science, technology and business for publications including CNBC.com, Fortune and Popular Science. 2/20/16“Is China's race to space a military ploy?“ http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/chinas-space-missions-in-2016-tied-to-military-ambitions.html )ski

A sequel to "Star Wars" may arrive sooner than anyone expects, as China funnels vast resources into an outer space program that may stoke new tensions with the United States .The country plans to launch more than   20 space missions in 2016 , making the year ahead the busiest ever for the nation's rapidly growing space program . After successfully launching 19 missions in 2015, the People's Republic plans a range of civilian and military missions that will test new rockets, launch a space laboratory , hone China's manned spaceflight capability and loft new satellites into orbit — all while furthering plans to bring a habitable space station online by 2022 and put Chinese astronauts on the moon in the mid-2020s. At the same time, the Asian colossus is investing in anti-satellite technologies that would destroy or disable space-based assets in the event of conflict. Considering the fact that the U .S. relies upon satellites for a lot of its intelligence collection and communication, it's a worrisome trend.And it is exacerbating tensions with   U.S. defense   officials and security analysts concerned by China's focus on enhancing its military capabilities in space.

China is increasing space innovation- tensions are increasing Grunberg 15 Alexandra Tisch School of the Arts at New York University. She has previously been published in The Fast-Forward Festival. 12 August 2015” Anti-Satellite Missiles and International Tensions See US, China and Russia Preparing for War in Space” http://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/9578-anti-satellite-missiles-and-international-tensions-see-us-china-and-russia-

preparing-for-war-in-space)ski

Tensions are reaching new heights between America , Russia, and China over threats to satellites in outer space. C hinese tests of what experts call "ground-based anti-satellite kinetic weapons" began in 2007, but have been occurring as recently as July 23rd of last year. No satellites have been destroyed yet, and Chinese officials state that the tests are only for scientific experimentation and peaceful defense, but is that the whole story? Michael Krepon, an arms-control expert and co-founder of the Stimson Center, says that the Chinese are testing to miss "with the same hostile capability as an end result."¶ A 2013 test sent a missile 30,000 kilometers above Earth, approaching the strategic location of US and Russian geosynchronous satellites. These hovering satellites, which could be considered easy targets, were a source of concern during the Cold War, but the recognition of possible nuclear repercussions stopped aggressive action by both the Russians and Americans against these vulnerable assets . Now that the Chinese government has shown that they have the ability to take down these satellites, the US must decide what lengths they are willing to go to in order to protect their claims in space.

Tensions are at a tipping point- The arms race has already started, now to is time to actKillalea 5/25 /16 Debra has 13 years’ experience in the national and international press and online media, with almost half of that spent working overseas. Debra spent six years in the UK working for the Mirror Group including the Mail Online.” US, Russia, China: Why space is the next military flashpoint” http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/us-russia-china-why-space-is-the-next-military-flashpoint/news-story/8ede7bda643bb2013b4c72cb2baef54f)ski

TENSIONS between the super powers are high and the race is on to dominate .¶ But if you think the next major military battle for dominance will be over land or sea, or any other piece of the Earth, then think again.¶ Experts predict the world’s global powers will soon be taking their battles into space.¶ Not only is the space race becoming more competitive but global powers are continuing to militarise what has long been considered to be the final frontier .¶ Writing for global intelligence agency Statfor, senior military analyst Omar Lamrani warned while the race for dominance in space began some time ago the race toward its weaponisation is accelerating faster than ever before .¶ According to him, global powers are working to develop and deploy anti-satellite weapons known as ASATs.¶ “ The technology , which began to be developed during the Cold War, has become an area of intense competition for the world’s most capable militaries over the past decade, ” he writes .¶

However, the more pressing concern is the possibility of US technology being attacked in orbit.¶ “For the United States, being the leader in military space technologies provides immense advantages ,” Mr Lamrani writes, adding, “At the same time, its out-size reliance on those technologies entails risks.” ¶ The fact the US dominates and depends on space could give rivals the incentive to attack its infrastructure. Some 1300 satellites currently orbit the Earth, providing vital communication, GPS, weather and surveillance.¶ The world’s militaries rely on that information for modern warfare and while the US clearly dominates, “ China and Russia

aggressively seek to challenge US superiority in space with ambitious military space programs of their own”.¶ It predicts a power struggle could “risk sparking a conflict that could cripple the entire planet’s space-based infrastructure ”.

China expanding now – General China is militarizing Space surpassing the US Pollpeter 15 iKenis a senior research analyst at Defense Group, Inc. (DGI), in Washington, DC. From 2013 to 2015, Pollpeter was deputy director of IGCC’s project on the Study of Innovation

and Technology in China (SITC). Prior to working at IGCC, Pollpeter was the deputy director of the East Asia program at DGI, where he managed a group of more than 20 China analysts. Before DGI, he was a researcher at RAND. He is widely published on China national security issues, with a focus on China’s space program and information warfare issues. A Chinese linguist, he holds an MA in international policy studies from the Monterey Institute of International Studies. “国梦,航天梦¶ China Dream, Space Dream China’s Progress in Space Technologies¶ and Implications for the United States¶ A report prepared for the¶ U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission “(China Dream Spack Dream_ Report_PDF ) ski

China’s pursuit of space power is intended to support this strategy. China views the development of space power as a necessary move for a country that wants to strengthen its national power. Indeed, China’s goa l is to become a space power on par with the United States and to foster a space industry that is the equal of those in the United States, Europe, and Russia. China takes a comprehensive, long-term approach to this goal that emphasizes the accrual of the military, economic, and political benefits space can provid e . By placing much of its space program in a 15-year development program and providing ample funding, the Chinese government provides a stable environment in which its space program can prosper. Although

For China’s military, the use of space power can facilitate long-range strikes, guide munitions with precision, improve connectivity, and lead to greater jointness across its armed forces. Economically, space technologies can create markets for new technologies and result in “spin-off” technologies for commercial uses that will make its industry more competitive. Politically, space power provides “carrots and

sticks” that China can use to influence the international situation. Internally, China’s rise as a space power is designed to demonstrate to the Chinese people that the Chinese Communist Party is the best organization to lead the countr y .

In examining China’s use of its space program to advance its national security, economic, and diplomatic interests, this study finds that China has made much progress, particularly in serving its national security interests, but that its goals of using space to advance its economic and diplomatic interests remain underdeveloped. As a result, China is a “partial space power ”; that is, a global actor that has yet to translate its power into comprehensive influence.Nevertheless, China’s efforts to use its space program to transform itself into a military, economic, and technological power may come at the expense of U.S. leadership and has serious implications for U.S. interests. Even if U.S. space power continues to improve in absolute terms, China’s rapid advance in space technologies will result in relative gains that challenge the U.S. position in space. At its current trajectory, China’s space program, even if not the equal of the U.S. space program, will at some point be good enough to adequately support modern military operations, compete commercially, and deliver political gains that will serve its broader strategic interest of again being a major power more in control of its own destiny

China is investing now – Causing US fear Dillow 16 Dr. Clay Dillow has writes about science, technology and business for publications including CNBC.com, Fortune and Popular Science. 2/20/16“Is China's race to space a military ploy?“ http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/18/chinas-space-missions-in-2016-tied-to-military-ambitions.html )ski

The strategy is working: Over the last 15 years, it's been able to start closing the gap with U.S . and Russian rivals — likely helped along by funding from the C hinese militar y.The accelerating tempo of China's civilian space activities now presents a further threat to U.S. space domi nance . The fear is that at some point in the foreseeable future, the Chinese could overtake — and even rocket past — the U.S. industry . "You've got this combination of civilian projects for prestige and military projects for power," said James Andrew Lewis, a senior fellow and

director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "It shows that the Chinese are moving to be a leader in space — if not the leader." Among the 20-plus launches scheduled for this year are maiden flights of China's Long March 7 and Long March 5 rockets, the latter being its heaviest and most technically sophisticated rocket to da te. China will launch communications and Earth-imaging satellites into orbit for Argentina and Belarus (marking the first time China has exported a satellite to Europe) as well as several satellites of its own. At least two scientific satellites, two navigation satellites and three spacecraft to augment China's High-Resolution Earth Observation System are slated for launch before the end of the year.The most visible and most ambitious mission will launch in the second half of the year, when a Long March 2F rocket sends the Shenzhou XI spacecraft and its crew of three astronauts to dock with China's Tiangong 2 space laboratory, a habitable module that will launch into orbit separately sometime in the first half of the year.Tiangong 2, while not designed for long-term habitation, is an important steppingstone toward building a Chinese space station that can be inhabited long term, similar to Russia's Mir or the International Space Station.The Shenzhou XI mission will allow Chinese

scientists to research technologies and identify potential engineering flaws or other issues before launching the core module of its permanent space station sometime later this decade. If the schedule holds, China hopes to have its very own space station online by 2022 — a space station that some security analysts worry could be used for military applications.Those missions will join an already lengthy Chinese mission portfolio as several ongoing science and technology programs launched in previous years continue to progress. Those missions include a lunar

orbiter that is presently scouting locations for a future robotic landing on the lunar surface (likely in 2017) that will pave the way for Chinese astronauts to land on the moon by the mid-2020s — a feat that would make China the only nation capable of putting astronauts on the moon a full five decades after Americans terminated the Apollo program."The significance of all this is that China clearly intends to have a competitive space capability," said Dr. John Logsdon, a space policy expert and professor emeritus at George Washington University. If the Chinese hit all the milestones they've set for themselves, they'll still be where the U.S. and Soviets were three decades ago, but they'll also have ticked many of the boxes on the modern space-power checklist.

New innovations means increasing tensions Leapold 16 been involved in the high performance computing industry for nearly 25 years as a writer and marketer with Intel, SGI, Motorola and other companies. He also has been a journalist at an all-news radio station in Washington, DC, and as an editor for news and business publications in Boston. In addition, Doug's articles about the HPC industry have appeared in nearly all of the industry-leading advanced computing publications, including HPCwire, where he covered a range of topics, including emerging supercomputing architectures, application code modernization, storage technologies and strategies, and the implementation of HPC technology within vertical industries. There, his focus centered on the implications and benefits of advance scale computing for business and society in general. 6/7/16 “US-China counterspace tensions mount” https://defensesystems.com/articles/2016/06/07/us-china-space-counterspace.aspx)ski

While much of the recent focus of China’s military strategy focuses on frictions in the South China Sea, the report submitted to C ongress this spring highlights Beijing's growing focus on countering U.S space assets. "In parallel with its space program, China continues to develop a variety of counterspace capabilities designed to limit or to prevent the use of space-based assets by the [P eoples' Li beration Ar my’s] adversaries during a crisis or conflict," Defense Department analysts asserted.¶ Congress added more than $32 million to the Air Force's space budget in fiscal 2015 to study future antisatellite capabilities, including offensive and " active defense" capabilities. It also instructed the Pentagon to "conduct a study of potential alternative defense and deterrent strategies in response to the existing and projected counterspace capabilities of Chi na and Russia."¶ Concerns have grown in the aftermath of Chinese antisatellite tests that demonstrated the capability to destroy military communications satellites, perhaps even those in geostationary orbits. The report states that a 2013 launch with a peak altitude of 18,641 miles may have been designed to test technologies for use during a counterspace mission in geosynchronous orbit. Satellites in geostationary orbit orbit at about 22,000 miles.*¶ A nalysts also suspect that earlier Chinese tests involved a prototype kinetic kill weapon. That possibility has U.S. military officials especially nervous, given the debris fields that could be generated in a space conflict. ¶ This year's assessment of its military power also warned "China is employing more sophisticated satellite operations and is probably testing dual-use technologies in space that could be applied to counterspace missions ." ¶ The report to Congress goes on to note advances in China's satellite launch capabilities, including two new versions of its mainstay Long March booster. The number of payloads being orbited ranges from the September 2015 inaugural launch of a Long March-6, which carried China's largest payload of 20 satellites.¶ At the other end of the payload spectrum, the Chinese military also launched four "femtosatellites,"

weighing just 100 grams each. Femtosatellites illustrate the scaling down of satellite payloads that began with cubesats and may eventually lead to cheap and disposable space sensors, dubbed chipsats.¶ As China's space technology continues to advance, Chinese President Xi Jinping has launched a series of ambitious military reforms designed to break up old PLA units . The goal is to create more agile regional commands patterned after the U.S. military structure. Such reforms could help China project power in the Pacific as the United States continues its "pivot" to the region.

No trust - Escalation inerasable Zappone 15 Chris is a foreign desk news editor MARCH 3 2015 “

US, China space rivalry grows as race for orbital commerce takes off” 3/3//15 http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/us-china-space-rivalry-grows-as-race-for-orbital-commerce-takes-off-20150220-13kbjx.html)ski

¶ On the ground China and the US aren't natural enemies , says Everett Dolman, a professor of strategy at the US Air Force's School of Advanced Air and Space Studies . "But they both fear the influence the other might have ," particularly as China is intent on protecting its borders and the US sees safety in keeping sea lanes and air space open. And those "geopolitical realities really collide first in outer space, " he says. The Chinese have carried out a series of anti-satellite missile tests for year s, using the SC-19 satellite killer missile, as part of their space-ground battle strategy which could one day hamper US space capabilities over the Western Pacific. The US, which possesses anti-missile and satellite technology , has recently conducted a nearly two year trial of the mysterious X37B unmanned space plane.¶ ¶ Space is an arena ripe for geopolitical misunderstandings.During the Cold War, Soviet leaders, mystified by the "real" purpose of an expensive and heavy US Space Shuttle, reportedly feared it would be used as a platform for pinpoint laser attacks on Politburo leaders, which prompted them to rush through their own unsuccessful space laser craft.¶ ¶ Today Dolman believes the risk of a misunderstanding in space is worsened by a key East-West contrast in views, with Chinese strategists eschewing the kind of trust-building openness Western militaries seek, largely because transparency in Eastern strategy is seen as inviting aggression , whereas opacity, so the thinking goes, encourages restraint.¶ ¶ " Where to the Chinese, [space] is an area that needs to be protected in times of crisis; to the US it's a place that needs to be open to prevent that crisis," says Dolman. "It's a problem right now that is unsolvable because both sides look at it in different geopolitical (ways)." ¶ At the same time, space is becoming a playground for billionaires such as Virgin's Richard Branson and a bigger market for private companies. Satellite launches increased by two-thirds in 2013 to 197, driven by units weighing under 91 kilos, according to the US Space Foundation. Investment not just in launch services but space services is growing. The market grew 4 per cent to $US314 billion in 2013, according to the Space Foundation. With investment growing, the prospect of an eventual risk to the political stability of space becomes a bigger factor. ¶ ¶ The threat of the US being unable to get its astronauts to the ISS unfolded just months before the notoriously bureaucratic space agency NASA awarded two US companies, Boeing and SpaceX, the job of delivering supplies and eventually astronauts to the ISS. Russia's threats also emboldened SpaceX to challenge Boeing and Lockheed Martin's combined launch contract with the US Air Force. Political risk, in other words, added a jolt of urgency and competition to a

sector little accustomed to either. ¶ ¶ "Developing commercial crew access to orbit will free the much more limited NASA resources to concentrate on more distant human missions," said US-based space historian James Oberg. "More significantly, it also will open the option for private development of other destinations in low Earth orbit. This may be the surprise arena for the next decade."¶ ¶ "I think we are seeing a growing legitimisation of private space ventures," said Tate Nurkin, managing director of IHS Aerospace and Defence, who notes the "economic drivers for the space industry" such as the demand for

satellites in space to enhance communications and global navigation are "likely to grow rather than diminish."¶ ¶ SpaceX, a company whose goal is travel to Mars, combined a resupply mission to the Space Station with an attempt to reuse one of the booster rockets. While the booster failed to perform the soft-landing back on the sea-based floating platform, the ongoing project is one of the bigger innovations in launch technology in decades. SpaceX is also competing with a group called OneWeb in trying to set up space-based internet services for the vast swaths of the planet that remain offline.¶ ¶ Despite the industry's growing globalisation after the end of Cold War, its level of dual-use technology means it's never entirely free of geopolitical considerations. ¶ ¶ Dolman says the big question today is will the Western vision of creative private-public space exploration prevail or will China's roll out of its sophisticated and in many ways better-coordinated system dominate. "Which one is going to better conquer economically and populate space?"¶ ¶ What's clear, Dolman says, is that the rapid commercialisation of space can actually be good for peace. "The more we can populate space the more valuable it is [and] the less likely the two states involved would get into an engagement that would [jeopardise that], like having a kinetic war, with killer satellites banging into each other."¶ ¶ Nonetheless, Western governments have grown edgy about the drift toward space competition with China, after Beijing surprised the world by destroying one of its own aging weather satellites in 2007 with a missile, sending 3280 pieces of debris into orbit. (That debris, by the way, will be tracked in part by the US C-Band space radar being set up in Western Australia by 2016.) While both Russia and the US have had this sort of capability for years, they avoided militarising space during the Cold War.¶ ¶ The same Chinese missile, known as the SC-19, has been used in anti-satellite tests almost half a dozen times since 2005. And as recently as May 2013, China has launched what's thought to be a new anti-satellite rocket which travelled high enough to potentially threaten other nation's military satellites. "The PLA recognizes its current technological disadvantage in its increasingly intense geopolitical and military competitions with the United States,"

said Nurkin, who added that China is working on a "suite" of weapons and systems "designed to make it very difficult for any future competitor or adversary to effectively militarily operate in the Western Pacific."¶ ¶ Today the three biggest space powers - the US, Russia and China - are increasingly charting separate courses . ¶ ¶

"Current tensions have ruined the basis for future space cooperation between Russia and the West," said space politics expert Pavel Luzin, a lecturer at Perm State University in Russia. At the same time, a Russia-China space alliance doesn't exactly look imminent, either, despite a series of agreements between the two countries. "Our hopes for China are a chimera because China is interested in its own goals in space technologies and space science," said Luzin.¶ ¶ Given the growing rivalry of the powers, Dolman says it's possible a conflict in space "may already have begun ".

Coop solves war Coop prevents space war Listner 14 — Michael Listner, is an attorney and the founder and principal of Space Law and Policy Solutions, a think tank and consultation firm that concentrates on legal and policy matters relating to space security and development - See more at: http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-us-china-space-cooperation/#sthash.He6zeZIM.YCuTdufQ.dpuf7-14-2014 ("Commentary," SpaceNews, 7-14-2014, Available Online at http://spacenews.com/41256two-perspectives-on-us-china-space-cooperation/)ski

Wolf’s rationale for banning bilateral U.S.-China relations, given in a 2011 interview, includes three key points. “ We don’t want to give them the opportunity to take advantage of our technology, and we have nothing to gain from dealing with them,” Wolf said. “ And frankly, it boils down to a moral issue. … Would you have a bilateral program with Stalin? ” The three assumptions in that statement are, quite simply, wrong, and counterproductive to U.S. interests. First, it assumes that working with the United States would give China opportunities not otherwise available and implies that the United States would be doing China a favor . Though China has wanted to participate on the international space station program and was banned from doing so by the United States, it will have its own space station soon . In fact, when China’s space station becomes operational around 2022, it could quickly become the de facto international space station , given that the ISS is currently funded only

through 2024, and that China has already invited other countries to visit its facility. In terms of the U.S.

doing China a favor, Chinese politicians are still interested in the ISS for symbolic reasons, specifically, being accepted as part of the international family of spacefaring nations. But many Chinese space professionals fear that cooperation with the United States would just slow them down. American politicians are

viewed as fickle and without the political will to see programs to completion, a view not exclusive to China. Further, other countries, including U.S. allies, regularly work with and sell aerospace technology to China.

China has not been isolated. Second, Wolf’s rationale assumes the United States has nothing to gain by working with the Chinese. On the contrary, the United States could learn about how they work — their decision-making processes, institutional policies and standard operating procedures . This is valuable information in accurately deciphering the intended use of dual- use space technology, long a weakness and so a vulnerability in U.S. analysis. Working together on an actual project where people confront and solve problems together, perhaps beginning with a space science or space debris project where both parties can contribute something of value, builds trust on both sides, trust that is currently severely lacking . It also allows each side to understand the other’s cultural proclivities, reasoning and institutional constraints with minimal risk of technology sharing . From a practical

perspective, working with China could diversify U.S. options for reaching the ISS. The need for diversification has become painfully apparent consequent to Vladimir Putin’s expansionist actions in Ukraine resulting in U.S. sanctions. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin subsequently stated, “I propose that the United States delivers its

astronauts to the ISS with the help of a trampoline.” And finally, Wolf stated that the United States should not work with China based on moral grounds. While clearly the United States would prefer not to work with authoritarian regimes, it has done so in war and in peacetime when it has served American interests . That is the basis of realism: Serve American interests first . While the United States would prefer not to work with Stalin, we continue to work with Putin when it benefits us to do so.

Were the U.S. not to work with authoritarian regimes, it would have few to work with at all in the Middle East. We live in a globalized world. Attempting to isolate Chinese space activities has proved futile, and in fact pushed China and other countries into developing indigenous space industries — totally beyond any U.S. control — that they might have done otherwise. High fences around areas of technology where the United States has a monopoly — and there are few of those left —

combined with a realist approach to working with China when and were we can, will allow the U.S. to lead rather futilely playing whack-a-mole, trying to beat back anticipated Chinese space achievements.

Lifting restrictions on space cooperation with china Solves David, 15 — Leonard David, has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is former director of research for the National Commission on Space and is co-author of Buzz Aldrin's 2013 book "Mission to Mars – My Vision for Space Exploration," Space, 6-16-2015 ("US-China Cooperation in Space: Is It Possible, and What's in Store?," Space, 6-16-2015, Available Online at http://www.space.com/29671-china-nasa-space-station-cooperation.html )ski

It will take presidential leadership to get started on enhanced U.S.-Chinese space cooperatio n , said John Logsdon, professor emeritus of political science and international affairs at The George Washington University's Space Policy Institute in

Washington, D.C. " The first step is the White House working with congressional leadership to get current, unwise restrictions on such cooperation revoke d ," Logsdon told Space.com. "Then, the United States can invite China to work together with the United States and other spacefaring countries on a wide variety of space activities and, most dramatically, human spaceflight ." Logsdon said the U.S.-

Soviet Apollo-Soyuz docking and "handshake in space" back in 1975 serves as a history lesson. "A similar initiative bringing the United States and China together in orbit would be a powerful indicator of the intent of the two 21st century superpowers to work together on Earth as well as in space ," Logsdon said.

While it is impressive that China has becom e the third country to launch its citizens into orbit, the current state of the Chinese human spaceflight program is about equivalent to the U.S. program in the Gemini era, 50 years ago, Logsdon noted. "China has much more to learn from the United States in human spaceflight than the converse ," Logsdon said. " From the U.S. perspective, the main reason to engage in space cooperation with China is political, not technical."

US-Sino space coop decreases space tension that exists in the squoWeeden and He 16 — Brian Weeden, is the Technical Advisor at the Secure World Foundation in Washington, D.C. and Xiao He, is an Assistant Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. April 2016 ("Use Outer Space to Strengthen U.S.-China Ties," War on the Rocks, xx-xx-xxxx, Available Online at http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/use-outer-space-to-strengthen-u-s-china-ties )ski

As the two nations act on these differing priorities and goals, tensions in the spa ce domain have had r amification s for the overall bilateral r elationshi p . Recent testing and development of anti-satellite capabilities by China, and a doctrinal focus on “active defense” have caused the United States to openly call for a stronger focus on space protection and warfighting. From the Chinese perspective , it is necessary to develop such capabilities to support national security, close the power gap, and defend itself from American aggression ., Failure to reconcile their differences in this domain could lead to a renewed arms race that could be to the detriment of both sides . Both countries have acknowledged the importance of developing a more stable, cooperative, and long-lasting bilateral relationship in space. Washington still hopes that Beijing can be a constructive partner for greater international space security. While China still chafes at the largely American constructed rules-based order, it

likewise has a clear interest in using its development of space capabilities to promote bilateral cooperation and to play a role the formation of new international regimes . Both of these dynamics were evident in recent United Nations discussions on space governance, with an isolated Russia attempting to

undermine international consensus on new guidelines for enhancing the long-term sustainability of space activities. Thus, the two sides have overlapping interests that present opportunities for cooperation and bilateral engagement. Accordingly, the United States and C hina should continue to engage in both bilateral and multilateral initiatives that enhance the long-term sustainability and security of space. Working together, and with other stakeholders, to help ensure the success of these initiatives would go a long way toward reinforcing the desire of both countries to be seen as playing leading roles in space governance and being responsible

space powers. The United States and China, as well as the private sectors of the two countries, should also find a way to engage in bilateral and multilateral civil space projects, including science and human exploration , though doing so will need to overcome strong political challenges. At the same time, both the United States and China should be cognizant of where their interests differ in space and look to enact confidence-building measures to reduce tensions and the risk of a crisis escalating into outright conflict. While the prospects for legally binding arms control measures are slim at this stage, they could put in place unilateral and bilateral measures to reduce tensions and development of direct ascent kinetic-kill and rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) capabilities. Finally, both countries would benefit significantly from improving their national space situational awareness (SSA) capabilities, and increasing data sharing with each other and the spacefaring community.

Space Co/op solves relations problems with techBeldavs 16 (Vis has a PHD Space deference frorm Columbus1983 the Founding Member at International Lunar Decade Working Group (ILDWG),Latvia Defense & Space¶ Current, International Lunar Decade Working Group, FOTONIKA-LV, Space Technology and Science Group Oy (STSG)¶ Previous ¶ Naco Technologies SIA, NAMI Indiana, NewLeaf-NewLife, Inc.¶ Education ¶ I “Prospects for US-China space cooperation“ 11/7/2016 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2878/1 )ski

Congressman Culbertson clearly recognizes that space tech nology is key to addressing major challenges facing not only the US, but the entire world community. To bar the United States from participation in global initiatives in the peaceful uses of outer space because China is also involved is , at best, is an ov eremotional response to the potential for illicit

technology transfer with a totally inappropriate instrument.Far more relevant to US national interests

would be for Rep. Culbertson to support developing more effective strategies to advance US commercial interests in space. Otherwise, the Chinese, not bounded by ineffective legislation, will eat

our lunch.No one has yet developed the technologies for ISRU whether on the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, or beyond. Yet ISRU technologies are central to the whole idea of asteroid and lunar mining. If the Chinese can work with everyone else on the plane t, but the US can only work with a short list as approved by the Appropriations Committee, it should be expected that the Chinese, drawing on the knowledge base of the entire world, will advance

more quickly. We have no lead in ISRU, and our lead in other domains of space

technology may not be particularly relevant to this challenge.It is time for Congress to wake up to the emerging commercial space future and work to fully unleash our commercial space potential rather than complaining about a very high level meeting in Beijing where common challenges in the peaceful uses of outer space were discussed with NASA experts present.

Dialogue key to coop and space security Johnson-Freese, 16 — Joan Johnson-Freese, Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, The Diplomat, 7-6-2016 ("US-China: Civil Space Dialogue," Diplomat, 7-6-2016 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthediplomat.com%2F2015%2F08%2Fus-china-a-civil-space-dialogue%2F )ski

In space, the ultimate goal of all U.S. strategies is for the U.S. to benefit from a sustainable space environment. Risks to the space environment stem from congestion (the U.S. owns more 40 percent of the satellites in orbit), space debris, naturally occurring space objects, and debris potentially created by anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. In recognition of its inability to deal with the space debris issues on its own, the U.S. already works with China and 11 other countries on the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordinating Committee (IADC), which has done remarkable work at the scientific and technical level in identifying issues and suggesting mitigation

approaches. Their suggestions are largely ignored, however, due to lack of trust at the political level . Building trust takes dialogue . The rhetoric of space competition has been escalating rapidly. Chest thumping, accusations and curious lingo such as “offensive counterspace” from Congress and

the Pentagon do little to build trust. Preventing that escalating rhetoric from evolving into military confrontation that would jeopardize U.S. interests is the job of the State Department. Therefore, it makes sense that State, with larger, strategic objectives beyond those of individual members of Congress or military services inherently needing threats to justify enhanced budget requests, would step in to fill the void created by the 2011 legislative action. Frank Rose, Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, will have a challenging task in identifying areas for civil space cooperation with China, given the dual-use nature of space technology and the domestic Kabuki

accompanying Wolf’s enduring ban. But acquiescing to talk about civil space cooperation is likely the carrot required to get to what the U.S. really wants to talk about – space security . Since its irresponsible high-altitude ASAT test in 2007, China has become “ politically correct” when testing ASAT technology, and now says it is testing missile defense technology, like the U.S., Russia and India, given the similarities of the required capabilities. China’s July 2014 missile defense test has been of particular concern to the U.S., and perhaps convinced the State Department that it was time to step in and pursue the best interests of the United States. Notably, the usual and most vocal critics of U.S.-China space cooperation have been largely silent, perhaps indicating that while unwilling to support the dialogue, the need is becoming recognized. The State Department has indicated that NASA and other space-related agencies will be invited to the dialogue, and it will be up to them to get the requisite clearances from Congress. Whether Congress grants these will be indicative. The next meeting between the U.S. and China is scheduled for October 2015. It will take all of Frank Rose’s considerable talents – with China and domestic political communities – to move a space agenda forward. But if sustainability of the space environment is the ultimate goal, it is not one that can be pursued unilaterally, or without China.

Neg

No Chinese expansion now Cooperation is taking pace now- No escalation Johnson-Freese 15 Joan is Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College. The views expressed here are those of the author only and do not represent the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Navy, or the Naval War College. August 07,

2015 “US-China: Civil Space Dialogue” http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/us-china-a-civil-space-dialogue/)ski

Included on the long list of “outcomes” at the conclusion of the seventh round of U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue meetings in June 2015 was a section on Science, Technology & Agriculture. Included in that section was a short paragraph on … space.¶ “101. Space: The U nited S tates and China decided to establish regular bilateral government-to-government consultations on civil space cooperation. The first U.S.-China Civil Space Cooperation Dialogue is to take place in China before the end of October Separate from the Civil Space Cooperation Dialogue, the two sides also decided to have exchanges on space security matters under the framework of the U.S.-China Security Dialogue before the next meeting of the Security Dialogu e.” ¶ The inclusion is remarkable given that other agencies of the U.S. government that deal with space, specifically NASA and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), have been legislatively banned from using federal funds “ to develop , design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate , collaborate , or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company ” since 2011. That ban was also interpreted to mean that NASA could not host “official Chinese visitors” at NASA facilities. Which raises the question of why one part of the U.S. government would consider dialogue with Chinese officials regarding space important and useful, while another wants to give China the silent treatment. The answer might well be realism versus political theater.

China is not spending enough to pass the US and is far behind in tech RT 14 “$40 billion: US space budget still exceeds rest of world's combined” 27 Oct, 2014 https://www.rt.com/usa/199480-space-budget-nasa-report/ )ski

¶ Last year the US spent about $40 billion on its space program , as China's space budget , which is

the second largest in the world, was about $ 11 billion in 2013; the next, Russia's, was roughly $8.6 billion; and India's, the fourth largest, was about $4.3 billion, says

a new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).¶ ¶ The report is a statistical overview of the global space sector and its contributions to economic activity, providing indicators and statistics based on both official and private data, in over forty countries with space programs.¶ ¶ The US space budget is divided between NASA and a number of other institutions such as the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, the Department of Transportation (Office of Commercial Space Transportation), the Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of the Interior’s Geological Survey (USGS) and some others.¶ ¶ Last year NASA spent almost 18 billion of $40 billion counted by the OECD. The funding has been lowered since 2011, when the Shuttle program, operated 1981-2011, was stopped. The peak in US space spending was in 2009, when it invested $47.5 billion in exploration.¶ ¶ Heavy clouds begin to move over the Vehicle Assembly

Building. (AFP Photo/Karen Bleier)¶ ¶ In 2014 over $5.1 billion was spent on scientific programs and over $5.2 billion for aeronautics, space technology and exploration. NASA scientific programs include Earth science ($1.785 billion), planetary science ($1.192 billion) and astrophysical programs ($659.4 million). ¶ ¶ All these programs comprise numerous missions to study and explore the Earth, the Moon and planets of the Solar system . Some of the most famous are the Curiosity rover on Mars and the Cassini mission on Saturn. NASA takes significant part in International Space Station’s work as we ll. ¶ ¶ However, NASA is often criticized for unreasonable spending.¶ ¶ NASA’s internal watchdog criticized the agency in September for its lacklustre management of a program intended

to identify and monitor asteroids that could be potentially dangerous to Earth - Near Earth Objects project (NEO). NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin said the program is nowhere near meeting its stated goal. He noted that the lack of progress came even though NASA’s budget for the NEO program has increased significantly over the past five years. During fiscal year 2014, the program was granted $40 million by Congress. Previously, it was working with $4 million.¶ ¶ "We believe the program would be more efficient, effective and transparent were it organized and managed in accordance with standard NASA research

program requirements," Martin said in his report.¶ ¶ The US space agency is also extending the Opportunity Mars rover’s

mission no matter what, sources in NASA told the media . The rover was meant to be abandoned in 2013 after 10 years of use as it suffered constant mechanical glitches and flash memory issues which caused several computer resets . Its mission has been accomplished but NASA still wants to continue using it.

Times have changed- Smaller Projects taking place in the squoMelton 16 Marissa Melton international news and occasionally narrate for television or radio WAMU 88.5, PBS, U.S. News and World Repor May 06, 2016 “No More Space Race for US, Rivalry Gives Way to Collaboration” http://www.voanews.com/content/no-more-space-race-for-us-rivalry-gives-way-to-collaboration/3318781.html )ski

In the four decades between Shepard's last spaceflight, much has changed between the United States and its onetime rival in space . ¶ With the 1998 launch of the International Space Station, pushing further into space has become a collaborative effort, including not just the United States and Russia, but also the European Union, China, and Japan. Over the years, at least 222 spaceflight technicians from 18 countries have worked together on long-term projects as they orbit the Earth every 90 minutes. March of this year, U.S. Astronaut Scott Kelly returned from a one-year assignment in orbit on the space station as NASA scientists monitored the effects of long-term space travel on the human body. During that time his identical twin, former Astronaut Mark Kelly, acted as a control subject on Earth. NASA plans to monitor both men for the next year as it prepares for a new era of space exploration -- one in which private industry plays a role.¶ Since the U.S. space shuttle program ended in 2011, the United States has depended on Russia for transportation to and from the space station on the Soyuz spacecraft — a mind-boggling reversal from the early, competitive days of space travel. But NASA has said it hopes to transfer that role to private U.S. companies as they develop suitable spacecraft . ¶

Several U.S. companies are working on just that. Today, the private firm SpaceX landed a rocket on an ocean platform for the second time, a signal that private industry is drawing nearer to becoming a major player in what has become a global space industry. Its goal is to develop rockets that can be used for multiple launches rather than discarded after one use, as has been the standard in the past. SpaceX cofounder Elon Musk has said reusable rockets could greatly reduce the cost of space travel.

Security K

Neg link

Threat construction of Chinese space weaponization creates a Self-Other security discourse Pomeroy, 15 — Caleb Pomeroy, Postgraduate at University College London, 6-6-2015 ("Discursively Constructing a Space Threat: 'China Threat' & U.S. Security," E-International Relations, 6-6-2015, Available Online at http://www.e-ir.info/2015/06/06/discursively-constructing-a-space-threat-china-threat-u-s-security/, Accessed 7-18-2016, MEW)

The question of whether or not China’s reemergence is threatening to U.S. security interests is discursively constructed to threaten the U.S . The possible answers to this question lead to conflict ; answering that China is threatening could lead to a security dilemma —a situation where the U.S.’s attempts to heighten its own security could evoke similar defensive responses from China, increasing the risk of conflict (Glaser, 1997). Defense analysts cite China’s emerging threat in space as a primary reason for the U.S. to weaponize space . However, Hui Zhang of Harvard’s Kennedy School (2008, p. 31) asserts “U.S. space weaponization plans will have disastrous consequences for international security

and the peaceful use of outer space.” She concludes that this would evoke appropriate defense measures by China, which could lead to a space arms race (Zhang, 2008, p. 40). Given this question’s discursive construction,

answering that China is a threat to U.S. security interests could cause a security dilemma that heightens the risk of conflict. On the other hand, if one answers that China is not a threat, the U.S. risks becoming ambivalent and could face an increasing perceived threat from China. U.S. Air Force General William Shelton explains that U.S. military satellites are effectively defenseless, and an attack would severely limit the U.S.’s civil, commercial, and military capabilities (“U.S. military satellites,” 2014). A report on the People’s Liberation Army’s space strategy published by the American Enterprise Institute (Wortzel, 2007) concludes that evidence exists that the PLA is preparing as though they might have to militarily engage the U.S. in space, citing weapons tests, legal justifications, and PLA literature as evidence. The report argues that justifications exist for the U.S. to develop space weapons systems, whether for defensive measures or offensive capabilities in future space conflicts. If the U.S. becomes ambivalent while China develops space arms, a U.S. perception of a China threat in space could increase as China becomes better armed relative to the U.S. Yet, as Zhang (2008) argues, arming space will likely evoke a military response from China. Therefore, even answering this essay’s question of a possible China threat in the affirmative or negative increases the risk of conflict.

This question’s discursive construction forces the use of the terms “U.S.” and “China ,” creating a “Self” and “Other” paradigm which places the two states in opposition; the debate over whether or not China is a threat to U.S. security interests is often expressed in the U.S. by using the language of America as “us” and China as “ them .” Jisheng Sun (2014) argues that previously , when China was considered an ideological partner, such as under the Nationalist Government of Chiang Kai-shek, U.S. policymakers used the term “ we ” to describe the two states . When referring to China’s rise today , China is often referred to as the “Other ,” in comparison to the “Self” of the U.S. The “Other” portrays the “U.S.-imposed ideological dichotomy between itself and China, identifying the latter as different and even contradictory to the U.S.” (Sun, 2014, p. 87). The policy discourse of the “Self” and “Other” simplifies and polarizes and can increase the speed and intensity of security dilemma dynamics between the U.S. and China (Johnston, 2013). This language creates American unipolarity where China’s threat reputation leads to out-group status, which in turn fuels perceptions of China as threatening. Intensifying threat perception increases a possible security dilemma, and security-conscious Chinese political elites are acutely aware of the security costs of dangerous foreign attributions to China’s character (Deng, 2006, p. 187). The “Self” versus “Other” paradigm distances Washington from Beijing and discursively places the two states in opposition. This question’s use of the word “threat” can increase U.S. perceptions of a Chinese threat.

Threatening versus nonthreatening language forces one to view space actions through a

threatening versus nonthreatening lens. For example, an emerging amount of literature focuses on the “China threat

theory.” Yong Deng (2006) argues that the “China threat theory” is foreign attributions to China as being harmful and destabilizing in international relations . Some analysts argue the theory helps defense industry insiders keep power and prestige gained during the Cold War by creating an existential threat supposedly facing the U.S. (Tiezzi, 2014). Though Beijing has disregarded this as Cold War-style power politics while reassuring the international community of its peaceful intentions, the risk still exists that the U.S. may genuinely

feel threatened by China’s actions (Deng, 2006). However, one reason may be the use of threat language and the subsequent understanding of actions as threatening or nonthreatening. This is problematic, because it risks creating a discursively constructed security dilemma that increases the likelihood of space weaponization (Peoples, 2008). While space weapons are only in their infancy in terms of

development and deployment, the “space policy discourse of several states is already predicated , to a greater or lesser extent, on the general probability of space weaponization , and this in turn risks premature preclusion of alternative outcomes ” (Peoples, 2008, p. 503). The existence of U.S. perceptions of a China threat that arises from its use of threatening versus nonthreatening terminology leads the U.S. to perceive China’s increasing space power as threatening, even if it is not China’s intention (Gross Stein, 2013). Therefore, this question’s use of threat terminology can increase the likelihood that the U.S. will perceive a threat.

Japan Re-arm DA

Neg UQSpace coop with Japan now – aim to counteract Chinese powerRT international 16 — RT international, Russian news source, 7-18-2016 ("US, Japan to bolster space cooperation over Chinese threat," RT International, 7-18-2016, Available Online at https://www.rt.com/news/198072-usa-japan-space-cooperation/, Accessed 7-18-2016, MEW)

The US and Japan will boost military coop eration in space to counteract China’s growing capability to shoot down satellites , a leading Japanese daily reports . The plan follows recent moves to increase space-based intelligence sharing between the states. The plan comes as part of the revised Guidelines for Japan-US Defense Cooperation, due to be published by the end of the year, Asahi

Shimbun reported on Wednesday. The plan will fundamentally a lter Japan’s previous commitment to the peaceful utilization of space , and put an end to the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) only monitoring Japanese space satellites. The space surveillance functions will be conducted by a special unit to be created within Japan’s Self-Defense Forces after 2018. JAXA’s surveillance functions will be relegated to the new unit in phases. In May, Japan agreed to pass on data gathered by JAXA to the US. Strategic Command’s Joint Space Operations Center. The US military has likewise provided Tokyo with classified information on space security since last year . The news follows an announced made by US deputy assistant secretary of state for space and defense policy, Frank Rose, who said China had conducted a weapons test for an attack on a satellite in July.

US-Japan space coop high now- new constitution Pekkanen 15 — Saadia M. Pekkanen, international relations, space, and Asia specialist, ("U.S.-Japan Military Space Alliance Promises To Grow In 'New Ways'," Forbes, 10-27-2015, Available Online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/saadiampekkanen/2015/10/27/u-s-japan-military-space-alliance-promises-to-grow-in-new-ways/#4c5e21d041f9, Accessed 7-29-2016)

Japan is poised to become a bigger military space player . It says this will protect against security threats from North Korea and China, and also fortify its alliance with the U nited S tates . Japan’s

space-related capabilities are not in doubt. Nor is there dispute about official and top-level support for these directions. One issue that has not gotten as much attention is how Japan intends to extend collective self-defense to outer space. Simply put, collective self-defense is the use of force to defend an ally or a friendly power. While Japan has had this right derived from the UN Charter, it chose not to exercise it in line with long-standing constitutional interpretations. This has changed. The Abe Cabinet’s Decision on 1 July 2014 reinterpreted Japan’s right to exercise collective self-defense . To be sure, on the surface, this interpretive change is incremental. But operationally, it is also historic. Unlike the past, the reinterpretation has changed Japan’s ability to come to the aid of the United States or other like-minded allies . Specifically, Japan now has the circumscribed minimum capability to protect the weapons and other units of, say, the U.S. armed forces so long as they are contributing to the defense of Japan. The reaction to the revision of the U.S.-Japan Defense

Guidelines in April 2015 showcased what all these changes might mean in the context of the U.S.-Japan alliance. As U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter put it, the U.S. can hope to cooperate with Japan in “new ways ” both regionally and globally, as it had not been able to do before. These new ways are not yet quite clear. But it is reasonably foreseeable that Japan’s new right to exercise collective self- defense will be implicated in the expanding U.S.-Japan military cooperation in the space domain .

Space coop high now – new military alliances Chanlett-Avery and Rinehart, 16- Emma Chanlett-Avery, Specialist in Asian Affairs and Ian E. Rinehart, Analyst in Asian Affairs, (“The U.S.-Japan Alliance”, Congressional Research Service, 2/9/2016, Available Online at https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33740.pdf, Accessed 7-29-2016)

The asymmetric arrangement of the U.S.-Japan alliance has moved toward a more balanced security partnership in the 21st century . Unlike 25 years ago, the SDF is now active in overseas missions, including efforts in the 2000s to support U.S.-led coalition operations in Afghanistan and the reconstruction of Iraq. Japanese military contributions to global operations like counterpiracy patrols relieve some of the burden on the U.S. military to manage every

security challenge. Advances in SDF capabilities give Japan a potent deterrent force that complements the capabilities of U.S. forces , for example in anti-submarine warfare. Due to the co-location of U.S. and Japanese command facilities in recent years, coordination and communication have become more integrated. The United States and Japan have been steadily enhancing bilateral cooperation in many aspects of the alliance, such a s ballistic missile defense, cybersecurity, and military use of space . As Japan sheds its self-imposed restrictions on the use of military force (in particular the constraints on collective self-defense) and the two countries implement their revised bilateral defense guidelines, the opportunities for the U.S. and Japanese militaries to operate as a combined force will grow. Alongside these alliance improvements, Japan continues to pay nearly $2 billion per year to defray the cost of stationing U.S. forces in Japan. In 2015, Japan and the United States agreed to maintain Japan’s host nation support at approximately the same level for the next five years.

Elections

Neg

LinkWolf’s law increased anti-Chinese space sentiment Costa 16 — Rebecca Costa, sociobiologist who offers a genetic explanation for current events, emerging trends and individual behavior, 2-8-2016 ("The Price of China-phobia may be America's Leadership in Space," 2-8-2016, Available Online at http://www.rebeccacosta.com/blog/the-price-of-china-phobia-may-be-americas-leadership-in-space-298.htm, Accessed 7-18-2016, MEW)

Though political tensions with China come nowhere close to those during the Cold War era, leaders heedlessly dismiss the opportunity to work together. In 2011, Republican Frank Wolf (R- VA) —chair of the House spending committee which oversees NASA— inserted a clause into the federal spending bill prohibiting develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement or execute a bilateral policy , program, funds from being used "to order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company." The bill was so anti-Chinese it went so far as to bar Chinese journalists from attending the launch of Endeavor's final mission. "We don't want to give them the opportunity to take advantage of our technology, and we have nothing to gain from dealing with them," Wolf told Science Magazine. "And frankly, it boils down to a moral issue... Would you have a bilateral program with Stalin?" Wolf's paranoia continued, "China is spying against us.... They are stealing technology from every major U.S. company. They have taken technology from NASA,

and they have hit the NSF computers. ... You name the company, and the Chinese are trying to get its secrets." Regrettably , the Congressman's sentiment and 2011 bill had an anti-Chinese ripple effect . In 2012, The U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission prepared an extensive report warning against China's view of international space travel. And in 2015, a report by UCSD's Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, argued that "China's efforts to use its space program to transform itself into a military, economic, and technological power may come at the expense of U.S. leadership and has serious implications for U.S. interests." Sounds eerily similar to opponents who vigorously fought Eisenhower's efforts to partner with the Soviet Union.

Space policy gets grouped in with climate policy – it’s a big issueRehnberg, 15 — Morgan Rehnberg, astronomer, writer, and public speaker who advocates for public engagement with science, 12/13/2015 ("Will Space Play in the 2016 US Election?," Universe Today, Available Online at http://www.universetoday.com/119642/will-space-play-in-the-2016-us-election/, Accessed 7-18-2016)

Even if space exploration doesn’t become a central issue of the coming campaign, it could well leak in from another direction: climate change . NASA is at the forefront of climate science research and considers it a core tenet of its research mandate . During the 2008 campaign, Clinton supported the expansion of NASA’s Earth observing program . Earlier this month, Sen. Cruz took the opposite position, suggesting to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden that the agency focus more on exploring outer space and less on studying

the Earth. With climate change likely to become a flashpoint during the campaign (the Pew poll discussed above shows climate science research is a priority for 54% of Democrats, but just 15% of Republicans), NASA and the NSF

might find themselves dragged into the larger fight.

Aff

link

No link: Americans don’t care about space Leroy Chiao 16 — Leroy Chiao, Former NASA Astronaut and ISS Commander, 3-23-2016 ("," Huffington Post, 3-23-2016, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leroy-chiao/the-politics-of-space-exp_b_9532278.html, Accessed 7-29-2016- MEW)

T wenty years ago, 75 percent of the world’s launch capability was manufactured in the U.S. Today, less than 25 percent is . Fifteen years ago, 75 percent of the world’s satellites were manufactured in the U.S. Today, less than 20

percent are. Why haven’t our elected officials noticed this erosion ? Or, if they do recognize it, why don’t they talk about it publicly? The answer is that we have been so used to being the leader in space , for so long, that we take it for granted . We assume, without considering the evidence, that it is still true. Why make it a political issue? Don’t worry! Be happy! This is dangerous . While the U.S. has a vague idea of someday sending astronauts to Mars, sometime in the next 20+ years, China, Russia and Europe are planning, with firm schedules, to send their astronauts to the Moon in the next decade. Shouldn’t we, the United States, lead this effort? If not leading, shouldn’t we at least appear to be relevant? While many positive things have been accomplished in space in the past decade, we believe that one of the most ill-considered comments to color our discussion, has been “Been there, done that,” pertaining to human lunar space exploration. Though not intended this way, it flippantly discounted a unique American accomplishment and a unique body of knowledge that the U.S. can bring to the human

experience, and the great human adventure. There are numerous technical, operational and programmatic reasons for the U.S. to go back to the Moon, as part of the effort to send astronauts to Mars. But, recognizing that politics motivate and drive all decisions, the warning klaxons should be sounding loud and clear to our politicians.

Space doesn’t matter in this election Sheldon 16 — John B. Sheldon, Dr. John B. Sheldon is a Marshall Institute Fellow, and a visiting professor at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He is also Editor Emeritus of Astropolitics, of which he was a founding co-editor, a peer-reviewed space policy journal published by Routledge. Dr. Sheldon was program director for Space Security at the Centre for Defence and International Security Studies, Henley-on-Thames, UK5-9-2016 ("2016 Election Insight: Space Just Doesn’t Matter in this Election," No Publication, 5-9-2016, Available Online at http://www.spacenewsmag.com/commentary/2016-election-insight-space-just-doesnt-matter-in-this-election/, Accessed 7-29-2016)

For many in the space advocacy community, claiming, even in this election cycle, that space policy issues do not matter is

tantamount to heresy. Well, I guess I’m the heretic. Under normal political circumstances a candidate’s view on space policy would , and should, matter ; but even then, its importance is dwarfed by more urgent issues like the economy, foreign and defense policy, and matters such as Social Security, Medicare, and education. Even this claim is heretical for a number of space advocates — and again, I’m that heretic. The reality in this election cycle , however, is that space does not matter . Calls for candidates to declare their views or reveal policy prescriptions on the future of American space activities is not only a desperate attempt to bolster the political importance of space, it completely misses the point of what this election is about . These are not normal political circumstances, and the very character of the political landscape in the United States is shifting under our very feet, for better

or worse. A number of current and former candidates, such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, have provided policy outlines for national security space; others such as Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton have expressed the usual platitudes that NASA and space exploration are great things that America should continue to do and be fantastic at. Beyond this, however, there is silence. Bernie

Sanders has many policy pledges on his campaign website, but space is nowhere to be seen. Donald Trump barely provides any details about any policy issue — with the exception of building walls — let alone about space. When asked, Trump did say that he believes America needs to focus on fixing “potholes” before concentrating on the national space program. Similarly, and perhaps more importantly,

outside of the relatively small community of passionate and committed space advocates, the vast majority of the electorate does not care what a candidate thinks about space policy. If they did, they would have told the candidates by now . They haven’t, and they are not likely to do so. Why is this? First, this election cycle has seen the culmination, on both the left and right, of voter frustration with the political and economic establishments in Washington and on Wall Street. This election is not about whose policies are the most plausible on this or that issue; it is a referendum on those whom we have usually entrusted to make policy. Some might argue that mainstream candidates such as Clinton and John Kasich are typical, status quo candidates for their respective political parties. But, in this election, these mainstream candidates are being forced to tack hard left and right in attempts to mollify and accommodate the formerly fringe movements now led by Sanders and

Trump. In order to either accommodate or stave off the far reaches of both parties, more mainstream candidates have greater, more fundamental issues to contend with than space policy. In light of this referendum on political and economic elites, space policy is viewed as a quixotic distraction. While the very establishment that has ruled this country for decades is under the microscope of detailed public scrutiny, space really does not matter. Furthermore, and

possibly frustratingly for mainstream politicians, space policy cannot be used as a means to deflect the palpable anger and cynicism of the electorate.

Espionage DA

Neg

UQ Growing evidence that espionage is happening now – cyberattacks prove motives Pentland 11 — William Pentland, Forbes specialist on environmental and energy issues, 5-7-2011 ("Congress Bans Scientific Collaboration with China, Cites High Espionage Risks," Forbes, 5-7-2011, Available Online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/05/07/congress-bans-scientific-collaboration-with-china-cites-high-espionage-risks/#4488e8412b86, Accessed 7-25-2016- MEW)

Although the ban will expire at the end of the current fiscal year in October, Wolf will seek to make the prohibition on any scientific collaboration between U.S . research agencies and China permanent. “ We don’t want to give them the opportunity to take advantage of our tech nology, and we have nothing to gain from dealing with them , ” said Wolf. “China is spying against us, and every U.S. government agency has been hit by cyber-attacks . They are stealing technology from every major U.S. company. They have taken technology from NASA, and they have hit the NSF computers . . . . You name the company, and the Chinese are trying to get its secrets.” Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has taken the position that the ban does not apply to any U.S. scientific interactions with China conducted as part of foreign policy. This interpretation will likely allow the President to continue current activities until the spending bill expires in

October. Wolf’s intense concern about the possible theft of intellectual property and sensitive military technologies resulting from joint U.S.-China research activities explain why the spending bill also prohibits NASA facilities from hosting “official Chinese visitors.” While this draconian prohibition

may strike some as borderline paranoid, a growing body of evidence suggests th at the risks of espionage are considerably high er than most people would suspect. Wolf has learned this lesson the hard way.

LinkCooperation leads to China stealing tech – displaces the US Stone 13 — Christopher Stone, a senior space professional and Flight Commander with the 222nd Command and Control Squadron supporting National Security Space Operations. In his civilian capacity he is Senior Space Analyst (Policy Integration) with the DoD Executive Agent for Space Staff, Pentagon, through Falcon Research, Inc, a space strategic consulting company. He assumed role of corporate Vice President of Falcon Research in 2010, 2-25-2013 ("The Space Review: US cooperation with China in space: Some thoughts to consider for space advocates and policy makers," No Publication, 2-25-2013, Available Online at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2246/1, Accessed 7-25-2016- MEW)

Many may argue, including official Chinese commentators,10 that the anti-China crowd is living in an old-fashioned “Cold War”11 mentality and that international space cooperation results in a “permanent solution to global crisis.”12 However, others, such as

Colin S. Gray, observe that “Strategy has a permanent nature, while strategies have a variable character.”13 In other words, nation states will still conduct activities that serve their best interest , and that includes greater power and influence globally. The US National Space Policy speaks of US

global leadership in space, yet it has a tone of internationalism. In contrast, Chinese space policy , while speaking somewhat on cooperation, is mostly about what is best for China. European space policy is similar; their space policy communications document from 2011 has spoken similarly about doing what’s best for “Europe and its citizens”14.

What is this permanent nature of strategy that Gray was referring to, and what is the context of China’s strategic character? Over the last decade, several reports by commissions and US government agencies have identified many policy issues that need to be debated and resolved before serious consideration can be given to space cooperation between China and the U nited S tates. If the debates and discussions lead toward a conclusion that space cooperation is in the US’s best interest, through its diplomatic impacts or economic leverage, then cooperation could be explored. What are some of these issues?

Reports in the press throughout 2012 highlighted an aggressive espionage campaign by China with regards to American space technologies . 15 This refers to knowledge, equipment, and components. As a report from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) states, a “ decades long effort” by China has been underway “ to achieve strategic parity with the West.” The means to achieving this strategic parity with the United States “ has focused heavily on acquiring advanced tech nology.”16

To clarify what DTRA means by “acquisition,” the report said that, “acquisitions is broadly interpreted, encompassing a variety of means by which technology comes into PRC possession. It includes external as well as domestic sources of technology, purchases as well as thefts, foreign-assisted developments as well as wholly indigenous achievements, an d strictly military-oriented tech nologies as well as those featuring dual use s.”17

The comment on dual-use space technology is important to note, especially given the law passed by Congress in late 2012 to allow some space-related technologies to be reviewed for removal from the US Munitions List (USML) on ITAR and over to the dual-use list Commerce Control List (CCL). These reviews must, in this author’s opinion, be thorough given the strategic context surrounding space industrial competition as well as international espionage and technology theft in space technology. Given the attention surrounding this issue in Congress and industry, this author believes these reviews will be well crafted. Dual-use technology means something that can have military utility as well as commercial applications. This sounds harmless when thinking of space technology components as “commercial” or “dual-use” items when

pursuing cooperative frameworks and perhaps even technology transfers with China in space. However, it’s not that simple.

China has been working hard, according to the DTRA report, to “harness dual use technologies, often developed or acquired through its commercial sector, for use in People’s Liberation Army (PLA) weapons. The principal sources of these technologies are foreign technology purchases, acquisition of Western companies, and cooperative technology transfers as part of commercial activities.”

Strategic risks not only include the military instruments of national power, but also economic and diplomatic competitiveness for the U nited S tates and its allies . For example, according to the 2012 Futron Corporation Space Competitiveness Index, of the fifteen spacefaring nations analyzed in their study, only China has grown

more competitive in the five years since the study began. As for the United States, while still ranked first among spacefaring countries, we were the nation that lost ground consistently in space competitiveness globally during the study’s history.18 So aggressive are China’s practices in obtaining US high tech products that the 2007 report of the US China Economic and Security Review Commission described Chinese espionage efforts as the “single greatest risk to the security of American technologies.”19

How does China collect this information or gain technological insight into American space technologies? Through several methods, some of which many in the space community might find surprising. In addition to the standard state spy-agency-type espionage and collection/theft of US space technologies, there are “private sector” entities that collect on behalf of the Chinese government. According to reports, “One distinctive feature of Chinese technology acquisition is the autonomy given to research institutes, corporations, and other entities to devise collection schemes according to their particular needs. These operations, which often involve surreptitious means of obtaining information, occur outside the direct supervision of the state’s intelligence apparatus… Another method of acquiring foreign technology… involves collecting information from scholarly literature and other open sources in the West.”20 (This includes magazines, newspapers, and journals of space technologies among others.) Keep in mind, that this open source collection is not just something that the PRC does, but other nations as well. The point of this part of the report is to acknowledge that regardless of whether a piece of information is classified or not, it could still be valuable information when paired with other information.

Where else have the Chinese taken space technology and policy information from the United States? “A joint CIA/FBI report issued in 1999 on China’s espionage against the United States described the activities of military attaches at the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C and the Military Staff Committee at the United Nations, who openly collect information from Western publications,” the DTRA report noted. Other Chinese nationals living abroad, who are usually not in the direct employ of PRC intelligence services, “lawfully gather most science and technology and economic intelligence through open sources, including university libraries, research facilities, and open source databases. The information they compile, while unclassified is nevertheless highly valuable.”21 Some examples include the various strategic space journals, space advocate organization online libraries, and

energy research societies’ libraries. In addition, there have been increased concerns about Chinese students serving as embedded spies at American universities.22

While many people seem to believe that the old strategic constructs of Thucydides of “security, prestige and wealth,”23 don’t apply today in the 21st century, they need to listen only to the words of the Chinese leadership. According to one report from DTRA in

2011, “Evidence of this [technology ensuring global power and leadership] mentality can be found in the expression Chinese scientists and engineers use to explain China’s sizable expenditures on its space program — an investment intended to secure ‘a place for one’s mat’ or China’s rightful place among spacefaring nations. For decades the sentiment behind this expression has proven remarkably enduring among the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party. In a widely quoted remark, Chinese Premier Wen Jaibao argued in a 2005 speech that ‘sc ience and technology are the decisive factors in the competition of comprehensive national strength.’”24

What is the reason for China’s apparent denial25 of these goals for “comprehensive national strength” and “securing their rightful place” in the global pecking order of space leadership? According to an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) analysis, “Beijing seeks to constrict America’s presence, alliances, access and influence in Asia and to limit the autonomy of Asian democracies.”26 The bottom

line, according to the AEI analysts, is this: “China is committed to a strategic deception campaign that masks Beijing’s ambition to restore what its leaders see as their country’s rightful place at the apex of an Asian and possibly a global hierarchy.”27 In short, there is more to China’s space program than just the glory and prestige of exploring space or having the capability to launch people into orbit. This is part of a grand strategy that seeks to not only lead the world in science and technology but also prevent US diplomatic influence in the Asia-Pacific region and even globally in various arenas, including economic development, national survival, as well as energy resources and control. In addition, it aids their goal of being able to “disrupt U.S. access to intelligence, navigation and communications satellites”28 during conflict or crisis in the Asia-Pacific region as part of the development of Chinese military space forces’ doctrine of “Assassin’s Mace”.29

In Chinese thinking, diplomacy becomes a crucial complement to both economic development and national survival. As an example, an SAIC report notes, Chinese energy diplomacy aims, among several objectives, to “protect China’s existing energy access to meet its growing demand for imported oil, to ease tensions in critical oil producing regions of the world… and to promote Chinese interests in other parts of the world to increase China’s [energy supplies] and foreign resource base.”30 The Chinese, according to their own words, are also looking beyond their gains and investments globally in oil, rare earths, and the like, and aiming for cultivation of resources in space. Thus it is not surprising to see space-based solar power and

development of space resources addressed in white papers and reports from the Chinese Academy of Space Technology. These national goals and ambitions , and the role of space, are done with the Chinese national interests in mind, “ regardless of the cost to other nations.”31

Because of these objectives, “it is a sound assumption that China would employ multiple means, including the possibility of strategic deception and perception management, to help achieve these three basic national objectives-survival, development and influence.”32 Put another way, as

mentioned before, these are the three Thucydides concepts of security, prestige, and wealth. National power and influence are still alive and well in the world and in space, and the United States and space advocacy groups alike would be wise to acknowledge this and plan their space and energy strategies accordingly. As an SAIC report puts it, “it’s better to understand how the Chinese government does business and pragmatically engage with it while maintaining a healthy skepticism.”33 When developing plans or statements of the supposed need to engage with China, given other allied spacefaring states in the Asia-Pacific region like Japan and Australia, “U.S. representatives should have information about Chinese strategic deception and perception management at their disposal”34 and in their minds.

Espionage key to disrupting US hegemony Walcott 12 — John Walcott, ADJUNCT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR , Georgetown University, MASTER OF SCIENCE IN FOREIGN SERVICE (MSFS) TEAM LEADER, NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, BLOOMBERG NEWS 4-18-2012 ("Chinese Espionage Campaign Targets U.S. Space Technology," Bloomberg, 4-18-2012, Available Online at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-04-18/chinese-espionage-campaign-targets-u-s-space-technology, Accessed 7-27-2016- MEW)

China is stealing U.S. military and civilian space technology in an effort to disrupt U.S. access to intelligence, navigation and communications satellites, acc ording to a report from the State and Defense Departments . “ China’s continuing efforts to acquire U.S. military and dual-use tech nologies are enabling China’s science and technology base to diminish the U.S. technological edge in areas critical to the development of weapons and communications systems ,” the report

released yesterday found. “Additionally, the technologies China has acquired could be used to develop more advanced technologies by shortening Chinese R&D cycles.” Two U.S. intelligence officials said that

while the Chinese military isn’t preparing to fight a major land war, its goal is to deny the U.S. military access to the other four arenas in which a war might be fought -- the seas around China, the airspace surrounding the country, space , and cyberspace . The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence matters are classified. Because China’s closed political system discourages the independent thinking that spawns

innovation, the Chinese rely heavily on stealing and reverse-engineering new tech nologies from Europe and America , both officials said. “Economic espionage, supported by extensive open- source research, computer network exploitation and targeted intelligence operations also enables China to obtain technologies to supplement indigenous military modernization efforts,”

the State and Defense departments said in an appendix to yesterday’s report. The agencies said China should be excluded from recommendations they made to ease restrictions on exports of communications and remote-sensing satellites and equipment.

The military steals tech to modernize Philipp, 16 — Joshua Philipp, award-winning investigative journalist at Epoch Times where he covers national security relating to China. He is an expert on hybrid warfare, including China’s roles and approaches in espionage, organized crime, and unconventional warfare.6-17-2016 ("EXCLUSIVE: How Hacking and Espionage Fuel China's Growth," Epoch Times, 6-17-2016, Available Online at http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1737917-investigative-report-china-theft-incorporated/, Accessed 7-27-

2016- MEW)

The Chinese regime’s People’s Liberation Army ( PLA) plays a special role in the theft of information . The military is required to cover a portion of its own costs, and over decades this focus on building external sources of cash has made its military leaders some of the most powerful people in China . According to a book, “China’s Economic Dilemmas in the 1990s: The Problems of Reforms,

Modernization, and Interdependence,” the PLA particularly re lies on external sources for its research and development programs . “ With only 70 percent of operating expenses in maintaining troops covered by the state budget,” it states, “ the PLA must make up the rest and still find supplemental funds for modernization .” Just like the nexus between government and private business in China, the lines between military and state, and military and private, are likewise thin. The re are many top officials in the PLA

who also hold high-level positions in state-run companies , and many of these individuals a lso hold top-level positions in the ruling CCP . Under the Chinese regime’s current leader, Xi Jinping, “an unprecedented number of senior cadres from the country’s labyrinth ‘jungong hangtian’ (military–industrial and space–technology) complex are being inducted to high-level Party-government organs or transferred to regional administrations ,” states a Sept. 25, 2014, report from the Jamestown Foundation. Former leader of the CCP Jiang Zemin had reformed the system in the late 1990s, when the landscape of

large companies in China was almost completely controlled by the military. According to several experts , however, the

changes Jiang made merely shifted control from the military to the hands of those who were then in charge of the companies. “They sat down like in ‘The Godfather’ where they said ‘You’re in charge of docks and I’m in charge of loansharking,'” said William Triplett, former chief counsel to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a phone

intervie w. The “reforms” essentially shifted the system from military-run to state-run, while allowing top military officers and high-level officials in the Communist Party to maintain heavy stakes in the companies, and preventing these roles from ending with their military careers. The Chinese regime’s military maintains “somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 front companies in the United States, and their sole reason for existing is to steal, exploit U.S. technology ,” said Lisa Bronson, deputy undersecretary of defense for technology security policy and counterproliferation, in a 2005 speech. The FBI’s

former deputy director for counterintelligence later said the Chinese regime operates more than

3,200 military front companies in the United States dedicated to theft , according to the 2010 report from the U.S. Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

Chinese espionage of space tech is state sponsored Philipp, 16 — Joshua Philipp, award-winning investigative journalist at Epoch Times where he covers national security relating to China. He is an expert on hybrid warfare, including China’s roles and approaches in espionage, organized crime, and unconventional warfare.6-17-2016 ("EXCLUSIVE: How Hacking and Espionage Fuel China's Growth," Epoch Times, 6-17-2016, Available Online at http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1737917-investigative-report-china-theft-incorporated/, Accessed 7-27-

2016- MEW)

While this system of state-sponsored theft unleashes individual initiative, as institutions scramble to steal what they can to turn a profit, the regime also provides strategic guidance . P roject 863 (also called the 863 Program) was started by former Chinese Communist Party leader Deng Xiaoping in March, 1986. According to a 2011 report from the U.S. Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, it “provides funding and guidance for efforts to clandestinely acquire U.S. technology and sensitive economic information .” In its original state, Project 863 targeted seven industries: biotechnology, space , information technology, automation, laser technology, new materials, and

energy. It was updated in 1992 to include telecommunications, and was updated again in 1996 to include marine technology. The

Chinese regime’s official programs to help facilitate foreign theft are not limited to Project 863 , however. It also includes the Torch Program to build high-tech commercial industries, the 973 Program for research, the 211 program for “reforming” universities, and “countless programs for attracting Western-trained scholars ‘back’ to China, '” according to “China’s Industrial Espionage.” “Each of these programs looks to foreign collaboration and technologies to cover key gaps,” the authors note, adding that it encourages Western-trained experts to help the Chinese regime’s technological development by returning to China, or “serving in place” by providing needed information gained while working for their Western employers. They cite a document from the Chinese regime, which states Project 863 maintains a library of 38 million open source articles in close to 80 databases that contain “over four terabytes of information gleaned from American, Japanese, Russian, and British publications, military reports, and standards.”

Plan significantly increases the chance for space espionage Johnson-Freese 15 is a professor at the Naval War College and author of "The Chinese Space Program: A Mystery Within a Maze" and "Heavenly Ambitions: America's Quest to Dominate Space." She was one of the witnesses at today's hearing on China's space and counterspace programs. 2/18/15 “: Why Wolf is Wrong About U.S.-China Space Cooperation” http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/johnson-freese-why-wolf-is-wrong-about-us-china-space-cooperation )ski

Wolf included language in several Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations bills that prohibits NASA and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP ) from engaging in any bilateral activities with China on civil space cooperation unless specifically authorized by Congress or unless NASA or OSTP certifies to Congress 14 days in advance that the activity would not result in the transfer of any technology, data, or other information with national security or economic implications . His indefatigable opposition to cooperating with China was based largely on its human rights abuses and efforts to obtain U.S. technology. He was one of the strongest, but certainly not only, congressional critic of China, always stressing that he loved the Chinese people, but not the Chinese government.¶ Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) is Wolf's successor as chairman of the CJS subcommittee. In December 2013 when rumors swirled that he would replace Wolf, he was

interviewed by a reporter for the Houston Chronicle and when asked whether he agreed with Wolf about China replied: "Yes. We need to keep them out of our space program, and we need to keep NASA out of China. They are

not our friends." ¶ It remains to be seen whether he will include the same language in this year's CJS bill, but Johnson-Freese spelled out why she thinks it is the wrong approach.¶ She provides a comprehensive rebuttal to Wolf's reasoning, but in essence her

contention is that "the United States must use all tools of national power " to achieve its space-related goals as stated in U.S. N ational S pace P olicy, National Security Strategy, and National Security Space Strategy. Wolf's restrictions on space cooperation simply constrain U.S. options , she argues: "Limiting U.S. options has never been in U.S. national interest and isn't on this issue either." She disagrees with Wolf's assumption that the United States has nothing to gain from working with China: "On the contrary, the United States could learn about how they work -- their decision-making processes, institutional policies and standard operating procedures . This is valuable information in accurately deciphering the intended use of dual-use space technology, long a weakness and so a vulnerability in U.S. analysis." ¶ For some issues, there really is no choice, she continues. China must be involved in international efforts towards Transparency and Confidence Building Measures (TCBMs) and space sustainability, especially with regard to space debris, a topic given urgency by China's 2007 antisatellite (ASAT) test that created more than 3,000 pieces of debris in low Earth orbit. She notes that since that test and the resulting international condemnation, "China has done nothing further in space that can be considered irresponsible or outside the norms set the United States."

Aff

No linkThe wolf amendment doesn’t stop espionage – only prevents the possibility of coop Johnson-Freese, 15, (Joan Johnson-Freese, professor at the Naval War College, “China’s Space and Counterspace

Programs”, 2/18/2015, Testimony before the U.S.-China Economic & Security Review Commission, Accessed: 7/15/16 MEW)

Regardless of whether Chinese intentions are merely ambitions or more nefariously aggressive, the U nited S tates must use all tools of national power – not just those related to deter, defend and defeat – to achieve the space-related goals set out in the NSS, the NSP and the NSSS. Congressman Wolf’s statement largely restates the reasons most often used for why the U nited S tates should not work ing with China on space issues - t echnology transfer concerns, values, and nothing to gain – thus limiting U.S. policy options necessary for achieving stated policy goals. Additionally, especially among those who grew up during the Cold War, there is a tendency to equate China with the Soviet Union, despite the vast difference between them and in the context of today’s globalized world versus the post-World War II world. Limiting U.S. options has never been in U.S. national interest and isn’t on this issue either. Those options enhance deter, defend and defeat efforts. First, however, the counterarguments to each of Congressman Wolf’s arguments deserve note. Congressman’s Wolf’s perspective assumes that working with the United States would give China opportunities in terms of surreptitiously obtaining U.S. techn ology otherwise unavailable to it . But we live in a globalized world. Attempting to isolate Chinese space activities has proved futile , and in fact pushed China and other countries into developing indigenous space industries — totally beyond any U.S. control — than they might not have done otherwise, and arguably reap more political and prestige benefits from doing so that if they had gotten the same technology from partnering with the U.S. The only outcome of the past two decades of strict export control there is hard data on is the damage to the U.S. commercial space sector . 38

Second, Wolf’s rationale assumes the United States has nothing to gain by working with the Chinese. On the contrary, the U nited S tates could learn about how they work — their decision- making processes, institutional policies and standard operating procedures . This is valuable infor mation in accurately deciphering the intended use of dual-use space technology , long a weakness and so a vulnerability in U.S. analysis. Working together on an actual project where people confront and solve problems together, perhaps, a space science or space debris project where both parties

can contribute something of value, builds trust on both sides, trust that is currently severely lacking. It also allows each side to understand the other’s cultural proclivities, reasoning and institutional constraints with minimal risk of

technology sharing. Perhaps most importantly, cooperation would politically empower Chinese individuals and institutions who are stakeholders in Chinese space policy to be more favorably inclined toward the U nited S tates. A cooperative civil and commercial relationship creates interests that could inhibit aggressive or reckless behavior, as opposed to Chinese space policy being untethered to any obligations, interest or benefits it might obtain through cooperation with the United States. The National Academies of Science (NAS) 2014 report titled Pathways to Exploration: Rationales and Approaches for A U.S. Program of Space Exploration, includes a specific recommendation that it is in U.S. interests to work with China.39 NAS has also successfully completed the first Forum for New Leaders in Space Science with the Chinese Academy of Science in 2014. It brought together 16 early career space scientists from China and the US to meet over two workshops where they shared

research results and discussed future research opportunities. A second forum is being planned. Wolf further stated that the United States should not work with China based on moral grounds. While clearly the United States would prefer not to work with authoritarian and/or communist regimes, it has done so in war and in peacetime when it has served American interests, and continues to do so today. That

is the basis of realism: Serve American interests first. While the United States would prefer not to work with Stalin, we continue to work with Putin when it benefits us to do so. Were the U.S. not to work with authoritarian regimes, it would have few regimes to work with at all in the Middle East. The U.S. provided supported Saddam Hussain’s regime in the Iran-Iraq

War.40 Chinese politicians are interested in the ISS for symbolic reasons, specifically, being accepted as part of the international family of spacefaring nations as a sign of regime legitimacy. But it is unrealistic to expect withholding U.S. cooperation on space issues can influence regime change in China. A similar approach was considered with the Soviet Union, and it failed. Further, in terms of the U.S. doing China a favor by working with it, perhaps ironically many Chinese space professionals fear that cooperation with the United States would just slow them down. American politics are viewed as fickle and without the will to see programs to completion. This view is reflected in changing

European views regarding space leadership. A 2013 piece in Germany’s Der Spiegel suggested that Europe is thinking of redirecting its primary space alliance from the United States to China, due to China’s “rising power” status in space.41 The question of whether China is challenging U.S. leadership in space has received considerable

media attention in the form of a U.S. – China “space race,” prompted largely by perceptions of declining U.S. space leadership. The U.S. civil space program is not dying, military space activities continue to expand, and no country is doing anything in space that has not already been done by the United States. But having started with such a spectacular accomplishment as the Apollo Program, it has been difficult to maintain the public enthusiasm required to fund further space spectaculars, such as a human spaceflight mission to Mars. Although not completely unsupportive, the U.S. public treats the space program as expendable to other government programs. The reality is that space, as with other areas of international relations, will likely be a multipolar environment in the future.42

America’s unipolar moment is over , and as long as it is reluctant to work with rising partners such as China, the perception of its space leadership will continue to decline as well . That is not to say that the United States will not continue to lead in some areas of space activity. If only by virtue of a heftier budget, the United States will be able to lead in select areas. But the days of total leadership are over. It will be a tough pill to swallow for those who

crave exceptionalism— but if we are unwilling to pay the price tag, then swallow it, we must.43 In that respect, China has not “usurped” the perception of U.S. space leadership, it is being ceded to them. This rebuttal to Congressman Wolf’s views assumes that the United States has a choice regarding whether or not to work with China. If, however, sustainability of the space environment upon which the U.S. generally and the U.S. military specifically relies upon for advantages is to be maintained, the space debris issue alone requires that the U.S. not exclude diplomacy as a policy option.

No space espionage – increased coop solves Beldavs 16 (Vis has a PHD Space deference frorm Columbus1983 the Founding Member at International Lunar Decade Working Group (ILDWG),Latvia Defense & Space¶ Current, International Lunar Decade Working Group, FOTONIKA-LV, Space Technology and Science Group Oy (STSG)¶ Previous ¶ Naco Technologies SIA, NAMI Indiana, NewLeaf-NewLife, Inc.¶ Education ¶ I “Prospects for US-China space cooperation“ 11/7/2016 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2878/1 )ski

Congressman Culbertson clearly recognizes that space technology is key to addressing major challenges facing not only the US, but the entire world community . To bar the United States from participation in global initiatives in the peaceful uses of outer space because China is also involved is, at best, is an overemotional response to the potential for illicit technology transfer with a totally inappropriate instrume nt .Far more relevant to US national interests would be for Rep.

Culbertson to support developing more effective strategies to advance US commercial interests in

space . Otherwise, the Chinese, not bounded by ineffective legislation, will eat our lunch .No one has yet developed the technologies for ISRU whether on the Moon, the asteroids, Mars, or beyond. Yet ISRU technologies are central to the whole idea of asteroid and lunar mining. If the Chinese can work with everyone else on the planet, but the US can only work with a short list as approved by the Appropriations Committee, it should be expected that the Chinese, drawing on the knowledge base of the entire world, will advance more quickly. We have no lead in ISRU, and our lead in other domains of space technology may not be particularly relevant to this challenge.It is time for Congress to wake up to the emerging commercial space future and work to fully unleash our commercial space potential rather than complaining about a very high level meeting in Beijing where common challenges in the peaceful uses of outer space were discussed with NASA experts present .

Russia Cooperation CP

Neg

CP 1NCUS-Russian cooperation solves Mars colonization and multilateralismMoskowitz 12 – Clara Moskowitz, Scientific American Editor, named Woman Physicist of the Month for December 2015, 2012 (“Mission to Mars: Why Russia & US Should Tag Team Red Planet,” Space.com, May 9, Available Online at http://www.space.com/15600-mars-mission-nasa-russia.html, Accessed 07-25-2016, AH)

Russia is ready and willing to partner with the United States for a manned mission to Mars, a senior Russian space official said recently.

And while NASA has not yet entered into any formal agreement to pursue the Red Planet , the agency's chief agrees that international cooperation is the way to do it.

"I have to say that currently there is no country that could organize a manned spaceflight to Mars and a safe return ," Sergey Saveliev, the deputy head of Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos), said April 12 at the United Nations headquarters here to mark theInternational Day of Human Space Flight.

"We strongly believe that th is project can be accomplished only through international cooperation ," Saveliev said through a translator. "In this field, Russia is ready to cooperate with the United States, with Europe and with other countries."

NASA chief Charles Bolden , who was also on hand at the event, agreed that collaboration is the way to go.

"We are absolutely trying to partner with everybody to go — anyone who wants to participate," Bolden told SPACE.com. "Our goal is to try to form international coalitions. Almost everything we do today has some international flavor to it, whether it's science flights, or human spaceflights. I think you'll find everything we do from here on out is probably going to be international in nature."

Not only will a manned trip to Mars come with a hefty price tag, but it will require some major advances in technology. [Gallery: NASA's Giant Rocket for Deep Space Flights]

"In order to accomplish this mission, we have to develop new technologies, first of all, new propulsion technologies, as well as technologies to counter existing harms of spaceflight, like radiation," Saveliev said.

NASA has no firm time frame to send humans to Mars, but the agency is starting up work on a huge new heavy-lift rocket that could travel there. The vehicle, called the Space Launch System (SLS), is designed to go beyond low-Earth orbit to the moon, asteroids and eventually Mars — all destinations beyond the reach of NASA's space shuttles, which retired last year.

The agency is aiming for a first flight of the Space Launch System in 2017.

International collaboration is already a strong feature of many nations' space programs, as going it alone can be prohibitively costly. The United States and Russia are currently partnering with Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency on the International Space Station, a weightless laboratory that cost $100 billion to build.

Bolden emphasized NASA's commitment to future collaboration as well.

"Since NASA was founded 52 years ago, international cooperation has been one of our cornerstones," Bolden said during his remarks. "We have entered into about 4,000 agreements in that time, with more than 120 nations and touching almost every aspect of NASA's activities. Right now, NASA has 535 active international agreements. This cooperation is the definition of win-win, bringing multiple benefits to everyone involved."

You can follow SPACE.com assistant managing editor Clara Moskowitz on Twitter @ClaraMoskowitz. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

2NC Solvency – General US and Russia can coop in space – there is current progress towards Mars col – also solves multilateralism by overcoming areas of discontent such as sanctionsMalashenko 15 – Uliana Malashenko, New York-based Russian journalist, graduated with honors from Moscow State University's department of Journalism, has contributed to well known Russian media outlets such as Expert TV, Kommersant FM and the Dozhd TV channel (also known as TV Rain), has covered the work of the Russian parliament, as well as other topics of public interest related to Russian domestic politics, such as the Russian street protests of 2011-2012 and rulings of the Russian courts, 2015 (“US-Russia cooperation in space: One area not affected by sanctions,” Russia Direct, July 28, Available Online at http://www.russia-direct.org/us-russia-cooperation-space-one-area-hasnt-been-affected-sanctions, Accessed 07-25-2016, AH)

Despite the overhang of Western sanctions , space exploration is one area where the U.S. continues to collaborate with Russia . Ever since its shuttle program was closed down, NASA has been relying on Roscosmos to ferry its astronauts and supplies to and from the I nternational Space Station, and those plans do not figure to change until 2024 at the earliest.

Below, Russia Direct discusses the pros and challenges of this collaboration between U.S. and Russian space agencies with Bob Jacobs, a deputy associate administrator for communications at NASA. Jacobs also shares his thoughts about potential future missions to the moon or Mars involving Russia.

Russia Direct: How do you assess the U.S.-Russia partnership in space in general today, amidst ongoing confrontation over Ukraine and the European system of international security?

Bob Jacobs: I think that the way the International Space Station was constructed and the agreement was built shows that we all depend on each other. No one country can continue to operate the International Space Station by itself. So, we need Roscosmos just like Roscosmos needs us.

We don't see a problem with this partnership at all; in fact, it's one of the few areas where our two nations agree – about the peaceful collaboration for the exploration of space. Right now, we have a Russian cosmonaut with an American astronaut doing a lot of research that's going to help us eventually to send humans to Mars. So, Russia is just as much a part of that exploration effort as is the United States.

2NC Solvency – Mars col US Russia space coop is strong and can lead to mars colBoren 15 – Zachary Davies Boren, 2015 (“Russia and the US will build a new space station together,” Independent, March 28, Available Online at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/russia-and-the-us-will-build-a-new-space-station-together-10140890.html, Accessed 07-25-2016, AH)

US-Russia relations may be at its lowest point in decades, but their space agencies are working together like never before.

Nasa and its Russian equivalent Roscosmos today announced plans to build a new space station for when the International Space Station ( ISS) is retired in 2024.

According to RT, after talks in Russia's cosmodrome in Kazhakstan, the world's foremost space programmes agreed to both prolong the life of the current ISS by four years - it was due to expire in 2020 - and collaborate on the next edition.

Roscosmos chief Igor Komarov told journalists: "We have agreed that Roscosmos and Nasa will be working together on the programme of a future space station."

The countries will create a new, unified set of space programme standards and systems, which Komarov said is "very important to future missions and stations".

The Associated Press quotes Komarov as saying: "Roscosmos and Nasa will work on a programme for a future orbiting station. We will think about discussing joint projects."

Last year Russia's Deputy PM Dmitry Rogozin said Moscow would leave the ISS project in 2020, and just last month Roscosmos said it envisioned the creation of a new Russian space station.

The new ISS may just be the start, with Nasa chief Charles Bolden saying the ultimate aim is to launch a joint-mission to Mars, according to RT.

"Our area of cooperation will be Mars. We are discussing how best to use the resources, the finance, we are setting time frames and distributing efforts in order to avoid duplication," he said.

The AP report, however, makes no mention of this part of the press conference.

The Independent has contacted Nasa about the story, and will update with its reponse.

News of the agreement follows the successful launch of the manned Soyuz spacecraft, which arrived at the ISS on Saturday.

Russian Mikhail Kornienko and American Scott Kelly will spend one year away from Earth, whilst another Russian astronaut Gennady Padalka will return to the surface in six-months time.

Russia to take tourists to space station

Upon their arrival after an eight hour journey, the trio were embraced by ISS residents Terry Virts and Anton Shkaplerov who, along with Italian Samantha Cristoforetti, have been there since November.

This is Nasa's first attempt at a year-long mission, which is twice the the length of the standard ISS stay. Four Russians have spent a year or longer in space, all aboard the Soviet Union's Mir station.

The mission's purpose is to analyse the physical impacts of a prolonged weightlessness.

At the press conference, Bolden also addressed criticism that Nasa is no longer funding many low-orbit missions, saying the agency is resolved to commercialising space travel.

He said there are plans "to attract more private developers to our joint exploration projects of the moon and Mars ".

Current Russian efforts on the moon indicate they have the ability to colonize MarsVersoza 14 – Cez Versova, 2014 (“Russia wants to set up moon colony by 2030. Here’s how it plans to do it.” Tech Times, May 11, Available Online at http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6769/20140511/russia-wants-to-set-up-moon-colony-by-2030-heres-how-it-plans-to-do-it.htm, Accessed 07-27-2016, AH)

Russia aims to first send rovers to the Moon by 2016 , a project that would cost a whopping 28.5 billion rubles, or 815.8 million in U.S. dollars, thus assistance from private investors would significantly help Russia, the report said.

Come 2028, manned Russian missions are expected to orbit the natural satellite, and finally, humans would fly to the Moon to build the very f irst infrastructures of the Earth-monitoring observatories, with the materials all coming from Earth.

For deputy Russia prime minister Dmitry Rogozin, a well-known staunch overseer of Russia's space and defense industries, t he plan is just the first among the numerous space explorations the Russia wants to achieve.

"We are coming to the Moon forever ," he declared last month amid Russia's poised invasion with Ukraine's Crimea. "Flights to Mars and asteroids in our view do not contradict exploration of the moon, but in many senses imply this process."

The planned expansion to the Moon could also do well for future missions as it could be used as a launchpad for father space explorations , Institute of Space Policy research chief Ivan Moiseyev said in an interview with the Izvestia.

Coop with Russia key to mars colSputnik 15 – Sputnik News, 2015 (“Roscosmos: Manned Flight to Mars Will Be Impossible Without Russia’s Help,” Sputnik News, December 3, Available online at http://sputniknews.com/science/20150312/1019410391.html, Accessed 07-30-2016, AH)

Roscosmos spokesperson Igor Bourenkov said Thursday that ambitious projects involving manned trips to deep space, including Mars, will have to be international in nature, Russia's RIA Novosti reports.

Bourenkov told Russian media that "projects involving [human] flight into deep space can only be international in nature. If a trip to Mars takes place, it will be with Russia's participation."

Bourenkov added that without accounting for Russia's vast experience in manned space flight, as well as unmanned flight to other planets, including Mars, a manned mission to Mars will be next to impossible . "In general, this is an area for international cooperation," Bourenkov noted.

Bourenkov added that rocky diplomatic relations between Russia and the US do not have to impede on international space cooperation, citing the fact that Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Kornienko and US astronaut Scott Kelly are scheduled to travel to the I nternational Space Station later this month; their stay onboard the station is set to last a year, which will be a new record for the ISS.

NASA has recently tested a super-heavy rocket for manned trips to Mars. Plans exist to send astronauts to the Red Planet after 2020.

2NC Solvency – Multilat US-Russsia coop solves multilateralismSpace Daily 16 – Space Daily, quoting Sputnik News, 2016 (“US-Russia Space Projects Set Example of Good Cooperation,” Space Daily, April 22, Available Online at http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/US_Russia_Space_Projects_Set_Example_of_Good_Cooperation_999.html, Accessed 07-25-2016, AH)

Russian cosmonaut and the executive director for Roscosmos manned programs Sergei Krikalev told Sputnik that the space cooperation between Moscow and Washington was a vivid example of the countries' partnership.

The current space coop eration between Russia and the U nited States sets an example of how the two countries should work together, a Russian cosmonaut and senior official at the space agency Roscosmos, Sergei Krikalev, told Sputnik.

"Despite any political issues between Russia and the U nited States, the space coop eration continues, and the current cooperation is a good example of how we should collaborate , because the space collaboration is important and it should be systematic," Krikalev stated.

Krikalev, who is the executive director for Roscosmos manned programs, noted that Moscow and Washington had continued to implement existing projects, while also maintaining talks on new ventures.

"First, the project of the International Space Station is being discussed and implemented. The program is changing, and it is expanding," he said. "Besides, the future projects are being discussed, including flights beyond low-earth orbit , flights to the vicinity of the moon, possible missions with the landing on the moon, first with automated machines and then with man-operated machines," Krikalev said.

The cosmonaut added that all these projects were part of a wider international agenda discussed with US, European and Japanese partners.

Krikalev is currently in Washington where he met with top NASA officials. On Tuesday, Russia presented a bronze bust of the world's first cosmonaut, Yuri Gagarin, to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC.

AT: Tensions US Russia coop succeeds despite tensionsDoroshev and Kravchenko 15 – Anton Doroshev and Stepan Kravchenko, 2015 (“Russia Sets Out Moon Landing Ambition, Leaves Mars Plans to NASA” Bloomberg, June 26, Available online at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-26/russia-sets-out-moon-landing-ambition-leaves-mars-plans-to-nasa, Accessed 07-30-2016, AH)

Russia ’s state space agency chief is shooting for the Moon , three years after a predecessor warned that the country was on the verge of losing its competitiveness in the industry.

A manned lunar mission in 2029- 20 30 is Russia’s priority , while there are no “current stage” plans for a journey to Mars, Igor Komarov, head of the Federal Space Agency or Roscosmos, said in an interview in St. Petersburg last week.

“NASA has Mars as the priority,” Komarov said. “We at this stage are making the Moon our priority. We can be good in rounding each other out and working jointly on this program.”

Komarov’s ambition of landing a Russian on the Moon contrasts with former Roscosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin’s warning in 2012 that the country’s space industry risked being uncompetitive within three or four years without “urgent measures.”

Russia, which put the first man into orbit in 1961, sees the Moon as a base for deeper space missions , Komarov said. It plans to send three unmanned craft to the Moon before a Russian cosmonaut attempts a landing, though Earth’s nearest neighbor shouldn’t become the object of a technological race between Russia and the U.S., he said.

Space Partners

“We see it as a joint project and are ready to invite our partners for it to be done,” said Komarov, 51, who was appointed Roscosmos chief in January after it merged with United Rocket and Space Corp. that he headed. Previously in charge of Russia’s OAO AvtoVAZ carmaker for four years until 2013, he was given the task of overhauling the country’s space industry following a series of recent accidents during launches.

Amid worsening ties between Russia and the U.S. over the conflict in Ukraine, space research could provide an example of cooperation that doesn’t depend on politics , Komarov said.

Sanctions imposed by the U.S. and the European Union didn’t affect cooperation in running the International Space Station, he said. Increased equipment prices and delays in international projects show that Russia’s space industry hasn’t completely avoided the tensions and it’s now forced to seek greater cooperation with fellow members of the BRICS group that includes India, China, Brazil and South Africa, according to Komarov.

“Global projects are easier to implement together,” he said. “Less investment is needed, it benefits everyone.”

Humanity will always be united by the “eternal dream” of searching for civilizations on other planets, Komarov said.

“I do believe in the existence of an intellect different from ours,” he said.

AT: EconomicsRussia continuing to expand space missions despite economic woes – CP can still solve Reuters 15 (“Russian economy may return to growth in less than two years, says president Vladimir Putin in phone-in”, ABC, April 16th, Available online at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-16/vladimir-putin-says-russian-economy-will-return-to-growth/6398940, Accessed on 07-31-2016, KG)

Russia's economy could return to growth in less than two years , president Vladimir Putin says , even though he considers it unlikely that the West will lift economic sanctions over the Ukraine crisis soon. In a televised call-in with the nation, Mr

Putin acknowledged that there were difficulties for Russia's economy, which has been hit by a fall in global oil prices as well as sanctions. Mr Putin was reminded that he had previously said the economy could return to growth in two years. His response was "With what we are seeing now, the strengthening of the rouble and the growth in the markets ... I think that it may happen faster ... but somewhere in the region of two years." Mr Putin has made clear that he largely blames the West for Russia's economic problems, including the weak rouble, higher inflation and falling revenues. The central bank expects the economy to contract by 3.5 to 4 per cent this year and by 1 to 1.6 per cent in 2016. Sitting at a desk in a television studio in front of rows of telephone operators taking calls from viewers, Mr Putin said the sanctions were politically motivated by Western powers which he accused of wanting to "contain" Russia. "I think they do not relate directly to events in Ukraine," he said. He added the sanctions had remained in place even though Russia believed Kiev was to blame for the failure to fully implement a ceasefire deal in east Ukraine. Mr Putin said he had recently discussed the sanctions with business leaders. "I told them we can hardly expect sanctions to be lifted now because they are purely political," he said. Mr Putin's ratings in Russia have soared since the country annexed the Crimea peninsula from Ukraine just over a year ago. But relations with the West are at their lowest point since the Cold War ended nearly a quarter of a century ago. Western leaders say they have overwhelming evidence that Moscow has provided pro-Russian separatists fighting Ukrainian government forces in east Ukraine with soldiers and weapons. Russia denies this and says the West was behind the overthrow of a Moscow-backed Ukrainian president in February 2014. Putin accuses Kiev of abandoning people of eastern Ukraine Mr Putin said Kiev was cutting off the Donbass area of eastern Ukraine by excluding its citizens from the national financial system. In answer to questions at the televised call-in, Mr Putin also denied reports that Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko had asked Russia to take Donbass, a coal-mining region where pro-Russian separatists rose up last year. "There are people who fight for their rights by force ... but there are also people have nothing to do with it, who have worked for their pensions ... So why are you not paying them?" he asked. "Thus we can say that today's authorities in Ukraine are cutting off Donbass with their own hands." Mr Putin also admitted the Soviet Union had sought to forcibly impose the Soviet model on Eastern Europe after World War II. "After WWII we tried to impose our model of development on many Eastern European countries and did it by force," he said. "We have to admit this. And there's nothing good about it." Mr Putin, however, accused the United States of trying to impose its own will just as the Soviet Union had in the past. "The Americans are acting in a similar way by trying to impose their model around the world," Mr Putin said. "They will also fail." Russia to build own space station by 2023: Putin

Russia plans to build its own orbiting space station by 2023 , Mr Putin said during the marathon call-in session. "By 2023, we plan to create our own national space station in orbit," he said. "This is something far off in the future, but also

necessary for us from the point of view of our national economy." Russia and NASA recently agreed to keep operating and financing the International Space Station ( ISS) at least until 2024 , but future joint space projects remain in doubt amid Russia-US tensions. The Kremlin strongman said Russia needed its own space station to be able to view its own territory properly from space. "We use the ISS actively for science and the economy, but from the ISS only five per cent of the area of Russia can

be seen," Mr Putin said "From a national station, we should be able to see the whole of the area of our huge country." "It goes without saying we will bring this project to fruition , and without any doubt, it will be under our control ." Mr Putin has held a call-in almost every year since he was first elected president in 2000, answering questions on issues ranging from local housing problems to regional and international conflicts. They have often been marathon performances, the longest lasting four hours 47 minutes in 2013 and have been used by Mr Putin to show he is in command and ready to address the people's problems, large or small.

CP funding solves – Russia won’t cut scientific research TASS 16 – Russian News Agency (“Russia doesn’t cut spending on scientific research despite tough budget — Deputy PM”, March 22nd, Available online at http://tass.ru/en/science/864206, Accessed on 07-31-2016, KG)

The Russian government does not cut total sum of spending on scientific research despite tight budget constraints , Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said at a general meeting of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He added that this concerns the research programs for both military and civil sectors. "Times are hard, budget constraints are tough. Nevertheless, the total volume of funding for science, here I mean the research for civilian and military purposes, is not reduced . On the whole, there are still solid conditions for the development of our science, of course, in collaboration with the international scientific community," Dvorkovich said. According to the official, Vladimir

Putin has set the task of preparing a new list of first priority research programs. "We are doing this work together [with the Russian Academy of Sciences] and will finish it before the end of the year, we will form a new strategy for science and technology policy," the official added. At the same time, there is no need to set up any new agencies or commissions, he noted. "I suggest that we should not engage too much in unnecessary administrative part but get down to a real meaningful work", the deputy prime minister said.

Aff

2AC Economics Russian space agency can’t solve – economic downturn and corruption Lewis 14 – James Andrew, senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at CSIS, where he writes on technology, security, and the international economy. Before joining CSIS, he worked at the Departments of State and Commerce as a Foreign Service officer and as a member of the Senior Executive Service (“Space Exploration in a Changing International Environment”, Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 2014, Available online at https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140708_Lewis_SpaceExploration_Web.pdf, Accessed online on 07-31-2016, KG)

How much progress Russia can make in restoring its space capabilities remains to be seen. The Russian economy is dependent on oil exports, and changes in oil prices will affect its ability to direct resources to space. In the past, even when Moscow allocated resources to space, corruption was a problem that led to program delays or failures . 22 Russia has also had problems with its Proton Launch vehicle, with six failures (out of 35 launches) since 2010, leading President Putin to restructure Roscosmos. Putin has promised that Roscosmos will receive roughly 2 trillion rubles between 2013 and 2020 (or

about $8 billion a year).23 These promises and the announcement of greater cooperation with China reflect Rus- sian unhappiness with the U.S. reaction to Crimea. The new focus of the Russian space program is

prestige and national pride. Russia will prefer to cooperate only with those nations like India with whom it has (or can assert) a client relationship . 24 In the past, Russia was unwilling to develop serious cooperative efforts with China because of con- cerns over technology transfer and an implicit competition between the two nations.25 It is unclear whether the new initiatives designed to respond to a common opponent will fare batter. The issue would then be whether it makes sense to continue the cooperation created in happier times, when Russia was not so confrontational in its relations with Europe and the United States.

2AC Dependency BadUS dependence on Russian tech kills solvency – they can cut us off at any time, decimating US national security and military powerBodner 13 – Matthew, contributor at US News (“A Space Race, But On Russia's Terms”, US News, October 8th, Available online at http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/10/08/american-space-exploration-depends-too-much-on-russia, Accessed on 07-31-2016, KG)

In order to maintain its space superiority, the U nited S tates currently relies on Russian technology – so much so, in fact, that every once in a while American claims to space superiority seem rather hollow. This state of affairs has been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks. On August 27, the Kremlin's English-language television channel, Russia

Today, reported that the Security Council of the Russian Federation was considering an export ban of the venerable RD-180 rocket engine . This engine is sold exclusively to the U .S. launch firm United

Launch Alliance to power its Atlas V rocket. The vehicle is considered by many industry insiders, analysts and casual observers to be the workhorse of the U.S. Launch fleet , and is regularly contracted to lift NASA, National Reconnaissance Office and United States Air Force payloads into orbit . The Russian decision, therefore, would be potentially disastrous from a national security standpoint.

Losing the RD-180 would have a serious effect on the United States' ability to access space, thereby impacting everything from military communications and control to the intelligence and commercial satellites enabling the U nited S tates to effectively pursue and protect its interests on the world stage . For the moment, there is little reason to believe that Moscow's deliberations are serious. There is no demand for the RD-180 domestically. Russia's NPO Energomash, one of their older and more experienced engine design and production houses, currently manufactures the RD-180 purely for export. In other words, demand for the RD-180 comes only from

ULA and other American launch firms. For this reason, it is hard to imagine that the export ban will come in to effect. It would make little sense for the Russians to initiate an export ban, as it would be detrimental to NPO Energomash. The noises out of the Kremlin are nonetheless significant, intended as they are to remind the U nited S tates that it maintains its access to space at Russia's pleasure . It's a reminder worth heeding. In the aerospace industry, politics has often trumped cooperation, and this could very well be the case today – a reflection of the sorry state of bilateral ties between Moscow and Washington that prevails currently. Or it could be more. Putin's Russia has made military modernization an important domestic priority, and the country's space sector looks to be one of the beneficiaries. Earlier this year, Putin pledged nearly $60 billion for his nation's civil space program. This funding bump is intended to buy Russia a new Cosmodrome, Vostochny, located in Russia's Far East, as well as bring the new Angara rocket to full service, replacing the aging Soyuz. As a result, Russia may soon find itself with a resurgent space program, opening up the possibility for domestic demand for the RD-180 (or similar) engines – demand that would mitigate

the effects of NPO Energomash's financial dependence on the American civil, intelligence and military space programs. The larger issue here is American dependency. Even if the positive spirit of bilateral cooperation in space survives the current, tumultuous state of U.S.-Russian relations, we must consider the fact that Russia is not a stable country. Were the Russian Federation to once more fall in to disarray , as it has in the past, there is no reason to believe the American launch industry would be able to count on the RD-180 any longer . Thus, for Washington, now reconsidering the feasibility of a real "reset" in relations with Moscow, the suddenly-uncertain future of the RD-180 should provide a wake-up call about the current, sorry state of American space power – and of the dependencies which currently drive it, with deleterious effects for U.S. national security .

<Insert impact to heg>

2AC China key Mars is too expensive for just the US Minter 15 — Adam Minter, Asia specialist for Bloomberg, 10-19-2015, ("Saving Matt Damon," Bloomberg View, 7-18-2016, Available Online at https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-19/nasa-should-cooperate-with-china-in-space, Accessed 7-19-2016, MEW)

Meanwhile, the current restrictions may well limit the potential for future collaboration , too. For example, in pursuit of its own space station (it’s currently excluded from the ISS), China has developed its own docking tech nology for space modules instead of committing to a standard being developed in the U.S. and Europe . That may seem like a small matter now, but such international rules of the road for space will grow in importance in coming years. As with trade, maritime navigation and multilateral finance, this is the time to strengthen standards and rules that all countries, including China, accept. Finally, th ere are the financial practicalities of a large-scale space mission such as one to Mars ( whose cost could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars). At its high point during the Apollo lunar program, NASA’s budget represented 5.3 percent of the federal budget. Today, it’s less than one percent -- a serious constraint on NASA’s ambitions. China is already repeating NASA’s past exploration path, going from simple orbital missions to unmanned lunar probes to its own space station. Though the Chinese can’t be expected to renounce their solo ambitions, both the U.S. and China would benefit from ensuring that China’s programs don’t needlessly overlap with NASA’s , and instead ad vance the cause of space exploration. A good place to start would be to bring China into the ISS. Russia, a U.S. geopolitical rival, is already a core member. China should be offered the opportunity to take part as well. Back in 2009 -- when it was still legal to discuss space with China -- Beijing also proposed that the two nations cooperate on smaller scientific missions. That’s still a good idea. If those experiments don’t work out, Congress can always tighten the purse strings later. But as the rescue in “The Martian” demonstrated, keeping lines of communication and collaboration open are in the interests of everyone, including NASA. It’s time to reopen them with China.

The US needs China for Space col Walker 15 — Alissa Walker, Alissa is the former urbanism editor at Gizmodo, 6-19-2015 ("What's Stopping Us from Building Cities in Space? No, It's Not Tech.," Gizmodo, 6-19-2015, Available Online at http://gizmodo.com/whats-stopping-us-from-building-cities-in-space-no-it-1711985320, Accessed 7-19-2016-- MEW)

Statistically, China’s space program is a few decades behind the US, but consider these facts: In a span of ten years the country sent ten people into space. In 2013 they landed a rover on the Moon. The agency is currently working on a mission to Mars and a proposal for its own space station, which is planned for sometime in the 2020s. Soon, China will undoubtably surpass the US in its efforts for space colonization . Thanks to a 2011 Congressional act that bars the US from

collaborating with China’s space program, NASA is not allowed to work directly with the most quickly accelerating efforts to get humans into space. This is a huge problem. “There are only two places that are going into space,” says Waldman, referring to current crewed missions by Russia and China. “We’re not one of them, and we’re not in collaboration with the other one of them.” Even more frustrating is the fact that certain politicians who are otherwise zealous about human spaceflight are voicing support for the China ban. Take Representative John Culberson, a Texas Republican who has been evangelistic about a mission to Europa. Since this Jupiter moon is thought to have liquid water and a climate which might support life, it’s currently second in priority in the roadmap, and NASA will soon need to make a critical decision about funding it. (Update: As of today, it’s

moving forward.) But he has also been vocal about not working with the Chinese. Many other political figures point to China’s human rights violations as a reason not to align with the country . Yet they seem to overlook the many human rights concerns when it comes to collaborating with Russia . What

could it take to change the US’s policy on going into space with China? A presidential order would help, but that doesn’t seem likely. What’s more plausible are some workarounds that may allow for indirect collaboration without bilateral cooperation. Our existing alliance with the ESA and Russia n programs, which have been separately planning a Mars mission with China, might allow some American science to tag along somehow. But co mpetition here is not the way forward. This isn’t a Cold War-era USSR-USA space race, this is all the world’s major space programs except ours working together.

China key to space teach Beldavs 16 (Vis has a PHD Space deference from Columbus1983 the Founding Member at International Lunar Decade Working Group (ILDWG),Latvia Defense & Space¶ Current, International Lunar Decade Working Group, FOTONIKA-LV, Space Technology and Science Group Oy (STSG)¶ Previous ¶ Naco Technologies SIA, NAMI Indiana, NewLeaf-NewLife, Inc.¶ Education ¶ I “Prospects for US-China space cooperation“ 11/7/2016 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2878/1 )ski

China is a country with which the US has very extensive commercial, academic, financial, cultural and strategic ties. GE, IBM, Caterpillar, and numerous other major US corporations have extensive R&D operations in China. But the US has no legacy of collaboration with China in space in space, even dating back to the Internationa l Geophysical Year in 1957 where China chose to not participate due to its perception of US meddling. China was not invited to participate in ISS. And the Wolf Amendment seeks to even prevent dialogue with China on the peaceful uses of outer space . China is both a developing country and a rapidly growing advanced industrial economy with

significant financial, industrial, and knowledge resources. China also has a profound understanding of economic development and the role of education, research, innovation, and technology commercialization as evidenced by its sustained, rapid economic development . China appears to be an excellent potential global partner, together with the US and the EU, to lead a global campaign to open the space frontier to peaceful commercial development for the benefit of all humanity.

1AR EconomicsEconomic decline has slashed the Russian space budget – no money to go to MarsKottasova 15 – Ivana, reporter at CNNMoney, based in London and covers European business and economy (“Economic crisis hits at heart of Russia's pride: Its space program”, CNN Money, April 27th, Available online at http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/27/news/economy/russia-space-crisis-cosmodrome/, Accessed on 07-31-2016, KG)

The Russian Federal Space Agency's budget will be slashed by 35% to 2 trillion rubles ($37 billion) over the next decade , the agency announced. "The cost of the program's projects has undergone significant changes over the last year given the prevailing economic conditions, changes in exchange rates and changes in the level of inflation," the head of the space program Roscosmos

Igor Komarov said at a news conference in Moscow. Russia is hurting a lot financially from the combination of low oil prices and tough western sanctions . It's forced Moscow to cut spending across many departments. The cuts forced Roscosmos to abandon several high profile projects, including developing extra-heavy rockets that can reach beyond the Earth's orbit , Russian state news agency Ria

reported. The cuts were announced only days after President Vladimir Putin reassured Russians that the space program will remain one of the country's priorities. During his annual marathon phone-in interview with Russian citizens, Putin said Russia is planning to have its own space station in orbit by 2023, a year before the International Space Station's planned decommission. Russia also hasn't canceled its plan to send a manned flight around the moon

by 2025 with the additional aim to land on the moon by 2029. Meanwhile, Russia's plan to build a new space launch site called Vostochny Cosmodrome in the eastern part of the country has suffered a series of setbacks because of funding problems and alleged corruption. Vostochny is set to become Russia's main cosmodrome. But construction is running behind the schedule. Russian media reported how dozens of construction workers have been on hunger strike for not receiving their wages on time . The Russian Prosecutor General's Office launched an investigation into the project and said a number of labor laws have been violated during the construction. When asked about the issue, Putin said he was taking personal control of the cosmodrome's construction. Launches from Vostochny were originally scheduled for the end of this year, with first manned missions starting in 2018. Currently, Russia launches rockets into space from the Soviet-era Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. The space program is a huge source of Russian prides. The space race against the U.S. was a big part of the Cold War conflict. Russians reached the space with the Sputnik satellite in 1957, and successfully completed the first human spaceflight in 1961.