Space Tradeoff DA

Shells

1NC

NAS’s budget is stable – but the fiscal environment is tightCasey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, “The House Passes a $435 million increase to NASA’s budget,” http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0529-the-house-just-passed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html

After a multi-day floor debate, the House of Representatives passed its 2015 funding bill for Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies by a vote of 321-87. NASA, which is included in this bill, is provided with $17.9 billion—$435 million above the

President's 2015 request and $250 million above its 2014 level. The accompanying committee report also directs the Planetary Science Division of NASA to receive a very strong $1.45 billion, nearly $185 million above the budget proposed by the President and very close to The Planetary Society's goal of $1.5 billion per year.¶ Marcia Smith at Space Policy Online has more details about the bill, including highlighting the four amendments that tried to take money away from NASA:¶ Four NASA-related amendments were defeated, three by voice vote and one by recorded vote. ¶ Kildee (D-MI), reduce NASA's Exploration account by $10 million and shift the funds to the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center: defeated by voice vote.¶ Kildee (D-MI), reduce NASA's Exploration account by $15 million and shift the funds to Violent Crime Reduction Partnership Program: defeated by voice vote.¶ Cicilline (D-RI), reduce NASA's Construction account by $8.5 million and shift the funds to Safe Neighborhoods Program (crime prevention): defeated 196-212.¶ Kilmer (D-WA), reduce NASA's Aeronautics account by $2 million and shift the funds to Economic High Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention Program: defeated by voice vote.¶ CJS committee chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) opposed all of them because they would have cut NASA funding, not because they disagreed with the alternative priorities advocated by the amendments' sponsors. ¶ I think we can all agree with the motivations here, but we need to avoid raiding one of the few truly long-term, optimistic goals of the U.S. government.¶ A proposal for a 1% across the board cut to all agencies, proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), was also defeated, fortunately. ¶ The Senate has yet to release details about its proposed NASA budget for 2015, though it looks like we'll see the first draft next week. The full Senate must pass its own version of the budget and then reconcile it with the House, so there is still a ways to go, but so far things are looking quite good for Planetary Science and for NASA.¶ We should take a moment to appreciate what happened today. NASA got an increase (a

small one, but an increase nonetheless) within the context tight fiscal policies in government . The CJS

committee, led by Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), made the NASA pie a little bigger, which supported an increase to NASA science, particularly planetary science. This is not a perfect bill (Commercial Crew receives too little funding in my opinion) but overall the House funded NASA at a stronger level than anyone predicted. It's easy to get angry at Congress for a lot of

things, but we should also make sure to acknowledge when they do something good. Today is a good day for space advocates, NASA, and space science, and I hope it's the start of a trend leading into the future .

Ocean and space funding are zero-sum – the plan causes a tradeoffKatherine Mangu-Ward, 9/4/2013, Slate Magazine, “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?” http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html

As usual, the fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17 billion, government-funded space

exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name

suggests, is more diverse.¶ But the way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous examples of state-backed exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s quest to climb to the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits.¶ But that changed with the Cold War, when the race to the moon was fueled by government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled into submarine development and other oceangoing tech.¶ “That

does lead to an either/or mentality. That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it

is a finite pool that you have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science,

welfare,” says Söhnlein. “In the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on the ocean side we have similar ventures.” And the austerity of the current moment doesn’t hurt. “The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. We’re really returning to the way it always was.”

Mars colonization is NASA’s top priorityRT News, 6/23/2014, “NASA plans to colonize Mars,” http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/

NASA may not be planning to put a human on Mars until the 2030s, but the agency’s top scientist said colonizing the planet is a key part of its agenda – as well as its search for extraterrestrial life.¶ In a wide-ranging interview with

the Guardian, NASA’s chief scientist Dr. Ellen Stofan emphasized that the quest to find alien life is focused primarily on

our own solar system, where potential targets include Mars, Jupiter’s moon Europa, and Saturn’s moon Titan. In order to most

effectively survey Mars for signs of life, though, Stofan said putting humans on the ground, and establishing a presence there, is a big priority .¶ In response to a question about whether or not NASA plans to bring back astronauts that reach the Red Planet, Stofan said, “We would definitely plan on bringing them back. We like to talk about pioneering Mars rather than just exploring Mars, because once we get to Mars we will set up some sort of permanent presence."¶ NASA has expressed such

interest before, most recently proposing to send a small greenhouse to the planet in order to experiment with

cultivating plant life – something that would be essential to establishing a permanent colony in the future.

Mars colonization solves extinctionGeranios ’10 (Nicholas, MSNBC, 11/15/2010, “Scientists propose one-way trips to Mars”, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/scientists-propose-one-way-trips-mars/) SW

Invoking the spirit of "Star Trek" in a scholarly article entitled "To Boldly Go," two scientists contend human travel to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made one-way. They argue that it would be little different from early settlers to North America, who left Europe with little expectation of return. "The main point is to get Mars exploration moving," said Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington State University, who wrote the article in the latest "Journal of Cosmology" with Paul Davies of Arizona State University. The colleagues state — in one of 55 articles in the issue devoted to exploring Mars — that humans must begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth. Mars is a six-month flight away, possesses surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water, carbon dioxide and essential minerals . They propose the missions start by sending two two-person teams, in separate ships, to Mars. More colonists and regular supply ships would follow. The technology already exists, or is within easy reach, they wrote. An official for NASA said the space agency envisions manned missions to Mars in the next few decades, but that the planning decidedly involves round trips. President Obama informed NASA last April that he "`believed by the mid-2030s that we could send humans to orbit Mars and safely return them to Earth. And that a landing would soon follow,'" said agency spokesman Michael Braukus. No where did Obama suggest the astronauts be left behind. "We want our people back," Braukus said. Retired Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell, who walked on the Moon, was also critical of the one-way idea. "This is premature," Mitchell wrote in an e-mail. "We aren't ready for this yet." Davies and Schulze-Makuch say it's important to realize they're not proposing a "suicide mission." "The astronauts would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars colony," they wrote, while acknowledging the proposal is a tough sell for NASA, with its intense focus on safety. They think the private sector might be a better place to try their plan. "What we would need is an eccentric billionaire," Schulze-Makuch said. "There are people who have the money to put this into reality." Indeed, British tycoon Richard Branson, PayPal founder Elon Musk and Amazon.com Inc. CEO Jeff Bezos are among the rich who are involved in private space ventures. Isolated humans in space have long been a staple of science fiction movies, from "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" to "2001: A Space Odyssey" to a flurry of recent movies such as "Solaris" and "Moon." In many of the plots, the lonely astronauts fall victim to computers, madness or aliens. Psychological profiling and training of the astronauts, plus constant communication with Earth, will reduce debilitating mental strains, the two scientists said. "They would in fact feel more connected to home than the early Antarctic explorers," according to the article. But the mental health of humans who spent time in space has been extensively studied. Depression can set in, people become irritated with each other, and sleep can be disrupted, the studies have found. The knowledge that there is no quick return to Earth would likely make that worse. Davies is a physicist whose research focuses on cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He was an early proponent of the theory that life on Earth may have come from Mars in rocks ejected by asteroid and comet impacts. Schulze-Makuch works in the Earth Sciences department at WSU and is the author of two books about life on other planets. His focus is eco-hydrogeology, which includes the study of water on planets and moons of our solar system and how those could serve as a potential habitat for microbial life. The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology covers astronomy, astrobiology, Earth sciences and life. Schulze-Makuch and

Davies contend that Mars has abundant resources to help the colonists become self-sufficient over time. The colony should be next to a large ice cave, to provide shelter from radiation, plus water and oxygen, they wrote. They believe the one-way trips could start in two decades. "You would send a little bit older folks, around 60 or something like that," Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who save the day in "Space Cowboys." That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of childbearing age is not a good idea, he said. There have been seniors in space, including John Glenn, who was 77 when he flew on the space shuttle in 1998. Still, Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice. The Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable, they said. "We are on a vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar system and likely beyond."

UQ Extensions

NASA Funded Now

NASA has sufficient funding to maintain Mars projectsJeff Foust, 5/30/14, National Geographic, “NASA facing new space science cuts,” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/

Congress to the Rescue?¶ Still, there may be relief for NASA, at least in the near term.¶ This week the House of

Representatives is scheduled to vote on a fiscal 2015 spending bill that would provide NASA with $17.9 billion, an increase of $435 million over the administration's request. NASA's astrophysics program would get a 12 percent increase over the White House's proposal, and planetary science would get a 13 percent boost.¶ The bill also addresses clashes for funding in other NASA programs.¶ The House bill adds $270 million to the president's proposal for the Orion capsule and the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket, which are being developed to carry out NASA's future deep-space missions even though it's unclear what specific missions they'll fly beyond initial test flights in 2017 and 2021. However, the bill cuts by nearly 10 percent funding for NASA's Commercial Crew program, which supports private development of spacecraft to transport astronauts to the International Space Station.¶ The House's budget would also set aside $100 million for a proposed mission to Jupiter's icy moon Europa that would launch in the early 2020s. By comparison, NASA requested just $15 million for the mission in its proposed budget, the first time the agency had specifically requested funding for the mission, although Congress provided some funding for it in 2013 and 2014.¶ "With this funding increase, we will be able to keep Mars 2020 on track and begin an exciting new mission to Europa, two of the science community's highest priorities," said Representative Adam Schiff, a Democratic member of the House Appropriations Committee whose California district includes NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

NASA has enough funding for Mars – but the fiscal environment is still tightIvelina Kunina, 6/1/2014, Liberty Voice, “NASA budget increase brings men closer to mars,” http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/nasa-budget-increase-brings-men-closer-to-mars/

Aliens and space exploration have been proven to be of some importance, as the Capitol Hill took a break from the standard political business and discussed the future of National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The government discussed the potential budget increase for NASA, as well as the Space Agency’s plan to bring men to Mars by 2035. When the NASA budget is increased it brings the dream of men on Mars closer to reality.¶ A Republican from Texas, Lamar Smith, conveyed his excitement about space exploration at an astrobiology hearing on May 21st. Smith believes that finding life in the universe would be one of the most significant discoveries in the human history. He went on to praise the recent discoveries made by NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope. These discoveries include an Earth-like world orbiting a nearby star.¶ The unfortunate reality for NASA is that while there are millions of planets and stars to discover, however problems with the budget are getting in the way of making important discoveries. NASA is a $17.6-billion civilian space agency and while vastly popular, many budget cuts threaten the development of new spacecraft and telescopes, despite the opportunity to create future in this post-shuttle era.¶ Ever since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, federal spending on the space agency has declined from 1.35 percent to less than 0.6 percent. In the recent years, budget cuts ordered by Congress had trimmed close to a billion dollars between the years of 2012 and 2013. This year, the NASA budget increased as the opportunity bring the man to mars became reality and not just some futuristic goal. The new budget increase recovered some of the lost money.¶ This week a major announcement came from the House of Representatives. They are currently scheduled to cast a vote on the fiscal 2015 spending bill that would be able to provide NASA with $17.9 billion. While it will not recover the lost billion from the year before, an increase of $435 million would provide NASA with extra spending money to direct its focus on sending a team of highly trained individuals to Mars. Meanwhile, NASA will give a 12 percent increase to their astrophysics program, while the planetary science program would receive a 13 percent boost.

AT “NASA Doesn’t Have Enough $ to Colonize Mars”

NASA’s budget is sufficient to start colonizing Mars, but stable funding is keyCasey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, “The House Passes a $435 million increase to NASA’s budget,” http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0529-the-house-just-passed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html

Currently, the American space agency is planning to put a human on Mars in 2035 – a plan that depends on the successful completion of a few different missions, as well as stable funding over the course of the next

couple of decades. As RT reported earlier this month, a new study by the US National Research Council found that under NASA’s current budget trajectory, reaching the Red Planet would be unlikely.¶ “Absent a very fundamental change in the nation’s way of doing business, it is not realistic to believe that we can achieve the consensus goal of reaching Mars,” said Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor and co-chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Human Spaceflight.¶ [NASA’s chief scientist] Stofan downplayed budgetary concerns, however, saying the agency has received “extremely favorable budgets in the last few years” and that tight budgets have inspired innovation at NASA. She also noted that the agency’s asteroid mission – which involves capturing an asteroid and redirecting its orbit around the moon so that astronauts can land on it – is all intended to test technology that would be used on a future Mars mission.

Mars = NASA’s Top Priority

Mars colonization is NASA’s top priorityLaurel Kornfeld, 6/23/2014, The Space Reporter, “Colonizing Mars and finding life are prime NASA goals,” http://thespacereporter.com/2014/06/colonizing-mars-and-finding-life-are-prime-nasa-goals/

Exploring Mars will remain a top priority for NASA, with the ultimate goals being a human colony on the Red Planet and additional searches for any existing indigenous microbial life.¶ Mars has been a NASA priority for a long time, with numerous missions having been sent there, including the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity in 2004, the Phoenix Mars Lander in 2008, and the Curiosity rover in 2012. Additional missions to Mars are planned for the near future.¶ NASA spokeswoman, Ellen Stofan, noted it is now well-known that the Martian surface once harbored liquid water, viewed as key to the existence of life. In searching for extraterrestrial life, it makes sense to concentrate on our own solar system, where there are several worlds that could potentially harbor one-celled or multi-celled microbes, she said.¶ To prevent contaminating the Red Planet with microbes from Earth, unmanned vehicles sent to the planet must be thoroughly sterilized and are put through an extensive decontamination process. Probes going to other worlds that could potentially harbor microbial life, such as Europa and Enceladus, must undergo the same detailed process of decontamination. Both Europa and Enceladus might harbor subterranean oceans that could host microbial life.¶ If this precaution were not taken, the result could be a false positive, in which scientists believe they found life on Mars when in reality that life came from Earth and hitched a ride on a spacecraft. The Galileo probe that orbited Jupiter, for instance, was crashed into the giant planet to prevent inadvertent seeding of Jupiter’s satellites with microbes from Earth. The Cassini orbiter, now exploring Saturn, will meet the same fate on the ringed planet once its mission is over.¶ While a private endeavor known as Mars One has its own plans to settle the Red Planet by bringing astronauts on a one-way trip, NASA will bring its astronauts home, Stofan said.¶ The ultimate goal is to colonize the planet and establish a permanent base there, she said.

Link Extensions

Link – Oceans

Ocean exploration funding directly trades off with Space explorationDiamandis 13 (Dr. Peter H. DIamandis. Chairman & CEO of XPRIZE, “A NEW AGE OF OCEAN EXPLORATION MAY JUST SAVE US” 10/24/13 http://oceanhealth.xprize.org/blog/2013/10/24/new-age-ocean-exploration-may-just-save-us-0)//EAZYEBefore humans explored frontiers beyond our atmosphere, they sought out frontiers here on our own planet. And the history of ocean exploration is one that reminds us that we have always longed to explore the unknown,

and that innovative and ambitious explorers will push those horizons no matter what. Yet with reduced government spending, especially in comparison to space exploration , and the fact that the ocean is not owned by one

specific entity, there is a void. What will catalyze ocean exploration? Who will steward the ocean and dive to its depths to uncover its mysteries?There was a long-held notion that audacious exploration needed primary support from the government. When we launched the Ansari XPRIZE in 1996, many scoffed at the idea that private citizens, using private financing, could build innovative spacecraft that successfully launch into space. Their response to what we were attempting to achieve often makes me think of a quote, "Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not." — George Bernard Shaw. Our proof is the new market that developed with the Ansari XPRIZE; private space transport is now a $1.5 billion industry. It's clear that exploration in the 21st century is not just for government-supported programs anymore.

Science funding is zero-sum – new NOAA priorities will tradeoffChad English, 3/25/2013, Compassblogs, “budget trade-offs: a zero-sum game,” http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-to-do-when-the-budget-becomes-a-zero-sum-game/

Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their 302(b) sub-allocation. But here’s the important part: Once those sub-allocations are set, it’s a zero-sum game within that subcommittee;

a dollar to one program must mean a dollar less for other programs . For scientists, the Commerce, Science, Justice and Related Agencies subcommittee is one of the big ones to watch. It determines the budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But it also sets the budget for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Commission on Civil Rights, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Marshal Service, and others. Once that’s set, any additional dollar that goes to NSF must come out of one of these other agency’s budgets. (The Washington Post reported today that the continuing resolution process to keep the government running the rest of this year is facing the same situation.)

Link - NOAA

The NOAA will directly tradeoff with NASAAmitai Etzioni, Summer 2014, Issues in Science and Technology, “Final Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier,” http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf

Every year, the federal budget process begins¶ with a White House-issued budget request,¶ which lays out spending priorities for federal¶ programs. From this moment forward,¶ President Obama and his successors should¶ use this opportunity to correct a longstanding¶ misalignment of federal research priorities:¶ excessive spending on space exploration and neglect¶ of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the¶ National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA)¶ into a greatly reconstructed, independent, and effective federal¶ agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting,¶ the additional funding necessary for this agency should ¶ be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration¶ (NASA).

NOAA ocean exploration directly trades off with other government agencies. Schectman 13 (JOEL SCHECTMAN, staff writer, “U.S Pushes Open Data Exploration of Seas” Wall Street Journal http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/07/27/u-s-pushes-open-data-exploration-of-seas/)//EAZYE

Over the next week, the NOAA will open all the data collected about this unexplored region’s life and geography to scientists, private companies and armchair explorers. The information will be uploaded in a format that will allow anyone with mapping software like Google Inc.'sGOOG -0.06% Google Maps or Esri to create data layers containing the newly charted terrain’s biology and geology. “That data is there for anyone to pick up and do science with,” said Mr. Roark as he sat aboard the vessel, that was ported in New York before its next expedition. Mr. Roark said fishing companies and conservation groups will also be able to use this information to harvest and protect the area’s resources.Although the oceans around America’s coast remain largely unmapped, tightened science budgets have made this kind of pure exploration rare , said Mr. Shank. “Usually a group of scientists get funded for specific research and that data doesn’t come out for two years,” Mr. Shank says. “This is all open. Collaboration is getting jumpstarted. Science is getting jumpstarted.”

NOAA hopes to expand ocean exploration over the next seven years by drawing funding from

government agencies and companies that use this exploration data. Google plans to embed information from the

expedition into its Maps product and help fund more expeditions. “This ship explores and produces questions for others to answer,” said NOAA spokesman Fred Gorell. “What it finds and what anomalies if finds can help excite others to seek funding and try to find answers.”

Link – Satellite/Warming Monitoring

Global warming monitoring trades off with other NASA fundingLawler, 9 [Andrew, senior writer with Science Magazine, and freelance writer for Smithsonian, National Geographic, Discover, Archaeology, Audubon, American Archaeology, Air & Space, Columbia Journalism Review, and other magazines, “ Trouble on the Final Frontier,” Science 3 April 2009: Vol. 324 no. 5923]

The $273 million Orbital Carbon Observatory's plunge into the Southern Ocean shortly after launch last month was a sobering reminder of the unforgiving nature of space exploration. But the ability to put a spacecraft safely into orbit is the least of the pressing issues facing NASA's $4.5 billion science program. A bigger challenge than the rare but dramatic rocket failure is finding the money to pay for an ambitious, complex, and unique set of missions. The squeeze on NASA's science budget arrives as researchers in a host of disciplines (see graphic below) begin planning the next generation of missions. No one—lawmaker, NASA manager, or senior scientist—seems to have an answer to the ballooning cost of space science projects. “There's no simple fix, or the situation would have been resolved long ago,” said a frustrated Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the new chair of the House of Representatives science committee's space panel, during a 5 March hearing that covered both science and space-flight overruns. The community is anxiously awaiting word on who will be the next NASA administrator. Last year on the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to increase the monitoring of global climate from space and support a new generation of robotic probes to other planets without throttling back on preparations for returning humans to the moon. The president's preliminary 2010 budget request, released in February and lacking details, proposes a modest boost to funding for both science and human space flight efforts as part of the agency's overall $18.7 billion budget. But those increases do not begin to cover what NASA's science program needs just to keep pace with the demands of researchers. The agency's science honcho, Edward Weiler, says he needs $900 million more every year just to keep up with current earth science projects. “There is no greater thing than starting a new, sexy science mission,” he says. “We all love it. The thing that prevents me is I've also got new, sexy missions started 5 years ago that are costing more than they were supposed to.”

NOAA no longer does satellite monitoring – program expansion will drain NASA’s budgetFoust 4/18/12 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/04/18/noaa-concerns-overshadow-nasa-in-senate-appropriations-bill/

If you looked at only the first sentence of the NASA section of the summary released by the Senate Appropriations Committee after its markup of the bill Tuesday afternoon, you might have jumped for joy. “The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level,” it

reads. Were senators suddenly feeling generous? Well, not really. The increase is due entirely to the transfer of NOAA’s satellite programs to NASA. Without that transfer, NASA’s budget is $41 million less than the agency’s fiscal year 2012 appropriations and just above the $17.71 billion requested by the administration. The chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations subcommittee, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), singled out NOAA for criticism in her comments about the budget, explaining the decision

to move NOAA’s programs to NASA. “Unfortunately, the Committee has lost confidence in NOAA’s ability to control procurement costs or articulate reliable funding profiles. Therefore, we have taken the unprecedented step of transferring responsibility for building our Nation’s operational weather satellites from NOAA to NASA ,” she said in a statement. “While NASA missions have also

experienced cost overruns and schedule slippages, NASA has been more responsive and competent in correcting these deficiencies.” The transferred funding would be placed in a separate, new account, called Operational Satellite Acquisition, within the NASA budget. That move was endorsed by the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX). “NOAA and the Department of Commerce have failed to rein in the life-cycle costs which are now exceeding $1 billion above last year’s revised budget projections,” she said in her opening statement. “NOAA is traveling in the wrong direction, and NASA is the right agency to oversee the procurement of satellites. “Beyond the shift of NOAA funds, the committee largely made tweaks to the administration’s budget request. The subcommittee restored $100 million

to NASA’s Mars science programs, although didn’t allocate that funding to any particular Mars program. The administration’s request for commercial crew was cut by just over $300 million, from $830 million to $525 million, but that reduced level is still above both the program’s 2012 funding of $406 million and the authorized level of $500 million for FY13. The Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle are funded at effectively the levels in the budget proposal: $1.5 and $1.2 billion, respectively.

Internal Link – Mars Funding is Zero-Sum

Mars funding is zero-sumMarcia Smith, 2/25/2012, Space Policy Online, “mars shaping up as NASA budget battleground,” http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/mars-shaping-up-as-nasa-budget-battleground

Mars is the Roman god of war, an apt connection as budget battles heat up with the release of NASA's FY2013 request. Lines are being drawn in the space science community generally and among planetary scientists specifically as everyone fights for scarcer resources. Future plans for Mars probes are at the center of the

debate. All eyes are on Congress to see if it will save the planetary exploration budget and, if it does, what will be sacrificed in this zero-sum budget environment.

Impact Extensions

Impact – Off the Rock

Extinction is inevitable unless we get off the rockThe Space Review 2011 “New strategies for exploration and settlement” June 6th, 2011 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1860/1That approach to exploration, he argued, should be applied to future human space exploration. The “ultimate rationale” for human spaceflight is the survival of the species, he said, noting the record of asteroid and comet impacts and the likelihood that eventually another large body will collide with the Earth, with devastating consequences for life on the planet. “If you want humanity to survive, you’re going to have to create multiple reservoirs of human culture,” he said, “and the way to do that is to expand human civilization off the planet.”

Colonizing Mars is the best insurance policy for all Earthly disasters Britt 1 Robert Roy Britt, October 8, 2001. “The Top 3 Reasons to Colonize Space,” http://web.archive.org/web/20090515103011/http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/colonize_why_011008-1.html

It's time to leave this planet, they all agree. Space colonization is not a new idea, but it is one that, despite decades of talk, has yet to be realized. Many promoters of putting humans permanently in space say the first step need not be all that big, with Mars right next door , cosmically speaking. And recent evidence suggests that the Red Planet contains the one key ingredient any practical colonization effort would depend upon: water. Yet while NASA is on the verge of putting another robotic probe, Mars Odyssey, into orbit around the Red Planet, there are no firm plans for a human mission to Mars. Not enough is known about the risks of long-term space flight or potentially deadly radiation, among other concerns, NASA officials say. And moving to Mars -- or anywhere else in the solar system -- would not be cheap. Estimates for a single human mission to Mars range from $10 billion to $50 billion and more. But space colony proponents argue that getting off Earth will yield results that could mitigate the initial financial outlay. Efforts to improve technology needed for human space travel, or even to mine asteroids for minerals, could serve as a nifty economic boost. And many experts think its wise to have a quick exit plan in place in the event that we need to evade an incoming asteroid or comet. With all this in mind -- even before recent threats to the global economy presented by a potentially prolonged war on terrorism -- SPACE.com asked Dyson, Gott and Goldstein why humans should leave this planet in the first place. Their answers and supporting reasons are as varied and colorful as the places we might go. Here are the top reasons suggested by those interviewed: To Spread Life and Beautify the Universe To Ensure the Survival of Our Species To Make Money and Save the Environment Spread Life and Beautify the Universe Two of the top three reasons for colonizing space are supremely practical, but first, here is a more esoteric motivation: "Our job is to help life spread out from this planet and make the rest of the universe as beautiful and varied as the Earth," said Freeman Dyson, who has worked at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, for nearly 50 years. "Dead worlds may be beautiful, just as deserts may be beautiful, but worlds full of life will give birth to a far wider range of beauty." In Dyson's view, once we let life loose, larger forces will take over. "Once life spreads out and is free to spread further, it will continue to evolve, with or without our help. Like good midwives, we should set it free and leave it alone." Such a lofty prospect would not be easy, of course. How do we breed plants and animals and create flourishing ecosystems on alien worlds? Dyson calls these puzzles solvable, "problems of biology and not of physics." And although the primary goal of many space enthusiasts is to set up human colonies, Dyson's idea might not even require our presence. Robots have already proven themselves capable of delivering payloads to other planets. And it won't be long before a probe from Earth, Voyager 1, will leave the solar system. "Whether humans go along to share the new habitats with other species is not predictable," Dyson says. "Each world where humans settle will have to deal with problems of immigration and overcrowding, just as we do on Earth." The important job for us now, he says, is to enlarge the domain of life. Larger decisions can wait. "We may leave to our descendants the decision whether or not to enlarge the domain of humanity," Dyson says. "It is enough that we give them the choice." Ensure the Survival of Our Species It's no secret. Sooner or later, Earth's bell will be rung. A giant asteroid or comet will slam into the planet , as has happened many times before, and a deadly dark cloud will envelop the globe , killing much of whatever might have survived the initial impact. "We live on a small planet covered with the bones of extinct species, proving that such catastrophes do occur routinely," says J. Richard Gott, III, a professor of astrophysics at Princeton and author of "Time Travel in Einstein's Universe." Gott cites the presumably hardy Tyrannosaurus rex, which lasted a mere 2.5 million years and was the victim of an asteroid attack, as an example of what can happen if you don't plan ahead. But space rocks may not be the only threat. Epidemics, climatological or ecological catastrophes or even man-made disasters could do our species in,

Gott says. And so, he argues, we need a life insurance policy to guarantee the survival of the human race. "Spreading out into space gives us more chances," he says. And the time is now : History instructs that technological

hay should be made while the economic sun shines. "There is a danger we will end the human space program at some point, leaving us stranded on the Earth," Gott warns. "History shows that expensive technological

projects are often abandoned after awhile. For example, the Ancient Egyptians quit building pyramids. So we should be colonizing space now while we have the chance."

AT “Mars Colonization Impossible”

Mars colonization is possible – the resources are there and the environment is suitableHender 10 – University of Adelaide, School of Mechanical Engineering (Matthew “Colonization: a permanent habitat for the colonization of Mars” http://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/handle/2440/61315

It has been demonstrated, through numerous measurements, observations and investigations, that Mars contains all of the essential elements for the maintenance of life and sustenance of an established habitat. Virtually every region of Mars has been proposed as being suitable for locating a habitat , from the poles to

the equator, above or below ground, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, and each being viable for various proposed designs. Regional characteristics, such as temperature, wind speed, dist storms and ground conditions must all be considered in any design. Particularly, a renewable supply of water is essential. Further, the method, and materials, or fabrication must be considered; utilizing local materials, or imported; constructed or inflated,; also considering things such as radiation protection, safety, living space, insulation, ease and speed of insulation and

redundancy. Facilities required in the habitat include those necessary foe living, recreation and working. Living facilities include life support systems, sleeping environments, meal preparation and ablution facilities and other such areas. Recreational facilities include lounge and reading areas, entertainment facilities and other such facilities to allow relaxation and diversional activities. Working facilities will include laboratories, office space, industrial areas( power

generation, etc.) workshops, food and other production areas. Power supply options on Mars are many. Depending upon the

power demand of facilities, which varies with the population and industrial requirements. Nuclear is considered to be the most viable, due to the reliability and the power generation capability , however, this will require resupply of nuclear

fuel, launched from Earth, and has environmental and safety considerations associated. Solar (surface or orbital), wind and possible geothermal energy sources appear to be reliable and viable systems of power supply, although each has its drawbacks. Options for power storage must also be considered, including fuel cells or natural gas (such storage of power is through the manufacture of the fuel, hydrogen or methane, respectively). Emergency power generation, through mechanical (human-powered) or

other means, must also be provided. All significant materials required to support life and industry are believed to exist on Mars. Processes for mining, extraction or concentration, as may be required must be developed and proven, however, this is considered feasible. Renewable water and atmosphere constituent sources are considered critical, as are nutrients necessary for the production of food.

We can terraform MarsHawkes 92 (Nigel, writer at The London Times, The London times, January 25, “Planet X marks the spot”, lexis)

Thanks to the Mariner and Viking series of spacecraft, we now know that Mars has been shaped by many of the same processes as Earth. It has seasons, clouds, polar icecaps, strong winds and active volcanoes, and once was so warm and wet that rivers carved out channels across its surface . Now the water has gone, some of it frozen into ice at the poles, where the temperature is cold enough to freeze not only water but also carbon dioxide. It is the ebb and flow of these white polar caps, created by the formation and evaporation of dry ice, that so excited the astronomers of old. At the equator, the temperature varies from a tolerable 26C at noon to a penetrating

-111C just before sunrise. Although the Viking landers found no evidence of life past or present, Mars is after Earth by far the closest the solar system comes to a habitable planet. It would be feasible to establish colonies on Mars, living inside domes that could create an artificial atmosphere and provide a screen against incoming solar radiation. Mars has no ozone layer, so its surface is bombarded by lethal amounts of ultraviolet light. Mars was once a much warmer and wetter planet than it is today. In 1952, Arthur C.Clarke, the science-fiction writer, in his book The Sands of Mars, envisaged a colony that was starved of support from Earth and set out to transform the entire planet. The idea has recently been given fresh impetus by Christopher McKay and his colleagues at Ames, who have conducted a feasibility study. The main uncertainty in their calculations, which only further exploration can answer, is whether the main components needed to form an Earth-like atmosphere water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen exist in sufficient quantities

on Mars. Assuming they do, then all that is needed to begin the process of breathing life on Mars is to warm up the planet, so that the icecaps melt to provide water and carbon dioxide. According to

McKay, this can be done by the same process that is responsible for warming Earth. Large quantities of ''greenhouse gases'', such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) blamed for global warming, would be injected into the Martian atmosphere. The amount of warming needed is about 60C, to bring Mars to a temperature range of between 0C and 30C, comparable to that of Earth. To achieve such an increase, some 40 billion tons of CFCs would need to be injected into the Martian atmosphere too much, McKay concedes, to be carried there from Earth. It would have to be produced in factories, large enough to make 100 million tons of CFCs a year, on the

planet's surface. The raw materials to supply such factories probably exist on Mars. Even so, CFCs alone would

probably not be enough. They might be aided by warming the poles with huge mirrors in space, reflecting sunlight on to them, or by scattering black soot over the icecaps so that they absorbed more heat. The hope is that by using one or more of these techniques, the temperature would begin to rise and a runaway greenhose effect would be created by the huge stores of carbon dioxide and water in the polar icecaps. A small increase in temperature would release large amounts of both

materials, creating further rises in temperature. The process, once started, should become self-sustaining. In due course say 100 years this would produce a damp, carbon dioxide-rich atmosphere in which some plants could flourish.

AT Private Sector/Space-X Solves

The private sector won’t solve Mars colonization – NASA is keySebastian Anthony, 6/18/2014, Extreme Tech, “SapceX says it will put humans on Mars by 2026, almost 10 years ahead of NASA,” http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-will-put-humans-on-mars-by-2026-almost-10-years-ahead-of-nasa

Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, has long been an advocate of setting up a Mars colony. Way back in early 2012 he said he’d worked out a way of sending an “average person” on a round-trip to Mars for $500,000. His tune seems to be a little more muted now, but his new estimate of 10-12 years — before 2026 — is still fairly optimistic. To get there, SpaceX would probably use the Falcon Heavy launch vehicle (basically the Falcon 9 but with two huge booster rockets stuck onto it), and a variant of the recently announced manned Dragon spaceship. NASA’s Mars mission would use the Orion spacecraft (which is finally almost ready for testing), and the new Space Launch System (which isn’t expected to be ready for a few years yet).¶ Actually getting humans to Mars isn’t all that difficult. Yes, the journey is quite long (around 200 days) and there’s a risk of

radiation exposure, but these are fairly small problems compared to a) landing on Mars, b) surviving on Mars, and c) getting back to Earth. This is the area where NASA — which has landed and taken off from

the Moon, and landed a huge rover on Mars — has a lot more experience than SpaceX. SpaceX hasn’t yet landed on the Moon — and, at least publicly, it has shared very few plans about how or when it would attempt such a landing. The upcoming manned Dragon capsule will ferry astronauts to the ISS, but it isn’t equipped for a lunar landing or takeoff. This isn’t to say that SpaceX couldn’t develop and test the various, exceedingly complex systems required for a Martian landing and takeoff, but 10-12 years is a pretty tight timeline.¶ The more likely possibility, unless society somehow finds itself entering

into a second Space Race, is that SpaceX will send astronauts on a Mars flyby in the 2020s, rather than actually landing and setting up a colony. It’s fun (scary?) to think that a commercial company — headed up by Elon Musk no less — will be the first to colonize Mars, but I doubt it. “I’m hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10 to 12 years,” said Musk on CNBC’s Closing Bell show. “But the thing that matters long term is to have a self-sustaining city on Mars, to make life multiplanetary.”

AT Other Countries Solve

The US is key – other countries can’t solveFirsing 14(SCOTT FIRSING, 31 JAN 2014, Daily Maverick, “Infinity and beyond: the global rebirth of outer space”, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-01-30-infinity-and-beyond-the-global-rebirth-of-outer-space/#.U68kn_ldUW4)China is not part of the ISS’ United States, Japan, Russia, Canada, and European collaboration. What China is hoping for is to have its own space station in orbit by 2020. It is an ambitious goal but its space programme has made giant strides in recent years. China most recently became the first country to “soft-land” on the moon in 37 years when the unmanned Chang’e-3 spacecraft successfully landed on the lunar surface in December last year. The ‘big bad’ Russians, a key partner in the ISS, are also looking to take their space programme to a new level, and they are putting their money where their mouth is. Russia has more than doubled spending on space in the last three years to more than US$5 billion in 2013. Russia is still the world leader in space launches but Moscow wants more. It is focusing on the moon to help rebuild its planetary programme. It wants to land a man on the moon and is contemplating constructing a space station around the giant hunk of cheese by 2030. It is hoped these lunar missions will help improve its domestic space capabilities. It is also looking towards partnerships to achieve the increased capacity goal as well. Russia has built a partnership with the European Space Agency (ESA) to explore Mars and there are talks of partnership with NASA for Venus missions. The United States and the ESA had planned cooperation on Mars exploration, but America backed out and now ExoMars is a joint EU/Russian mission instead. Mars is the real deal and most ‘space gossip’ revolves around exploring the red planet. In December, India launched its Mars Orbiter Mission, a probe expected to reach Mars on 24 September 2014. This mission has showed the technological capability of the Indian Space Research Organisation. On a more practical level, the Indian probe will carry out experiments such as searching for methane gas in Mars atmosphere. NASA recently launched its own Mars probe called MAVEN, which is expected to

arrive just three days after India’s on 27 September. Despite all the other countries’ accomplishments, America’s NASA is still seen as the ‘space’ leader. Its partnership with the other countries via the ISS has proved useful in understanding minuet but very important aspects of life in space

such as using the toilet. It has also provided the time and data necessary to better understand larger components like damage caused by radiation and extreme temperature changes.

Impact – Overview Effect

Mars exploration creates an overview effect – that unites the people of EarthBarker 2 Donald C. Barker, M.S., M.A., Int’l Space Station Flight Controller, NASA, and Pres. Of the Mars Advanced Exploration and Development, INC., AD ASTRA, July/August, 2002. p33-4

The exploration of another planet Mars by humans will have far-reaching cultural and social influences and benefits here on Earth. Our government and society continually touts the need and objective of instilling, especially within our youth, a desire and motivation to study science, mathematics and other technical subjects; yet, modern culture and media continually display other behaviors and icons, both positive and negative, as the recipients of life’s benefits and rewards (most often material in nature). This dichotomy within the reward (i.e., property and wealth) venue is prevalent in many of the occupations (e.g., teaching, research and even engineering) that have been deemed important to the enrichment and strength of our culture and future. The exploration of Mars will, without a doubt, provide decades of unabated inspiration and motivation to the youth and peoples of Earth. Far more than any other occurrence in human history, such an event will be able to unite the peoples of Earth in positive action and spirit. The ability to jointly experience an event of such enormity allows for the creation of a platform upon which one may develop insight into universal empathy and understanding. In addition, other authors have espoused a need to establish new enclaves of economic and genetic diversity based on the observation of increasingly restricted and diminishing variations available within the modern social and geopolitical framework.

Global solidarity is key to prevent extinctionAtkinson 2005(Robert, Diversity Scholar at the College of Education and Human Development University of Southern Maine, “TEACHING FOR DIVERSITY, MULTICULTURAL VALUES & WORLD MINDEDNESS” http://web1.uct.usm.maine.edu/~atkinson/diversity/TeachingforDiversityMV&WM1.pdf)

As the world’s peoples find themselves in closer, more intimate, more necessary interactions every day, the forces of separation, having contributed to a long – and current – history of conflict, oppression, racism, international terror, and war, become ever more apparent as they now threaten our very

existence . We also have a long history of consolidation, built upon a conciliatory urge that recognizes the necessity of difference and acknowledges the wholeness inherent in diversity. These ever-present, opposing forces are also known as disintegration and integration. Thus, the results of a steady growth toward integration and the devastating effects of disintegration that eat away at the very fabric of our social institutions are both very evident.

Aff Answers

Oceans > Space

Ocean exploration is comparatively better than space explorationConathan and Li 13 ( Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at the Center for American Progress. Judy Li, an intern at the Center for American Progress, contributed to this work. “Rockets Top Submarines: Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending” http://americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2013/06/18/66956/rockets-top-submarines-space-exploration-dollars-dwarf-ocean-spending/)//EAZYE

All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin . In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive . But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million,

deep-sea exploration is pricey as well . And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. In a time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more

likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral resources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology.

Space exploration should be subbed for Ocean exploration. Oceans are less expensive and key to solve climate and diseaseEtzioni 12 (Amitai Etzioni, Staff writer, “Mars can wait. Oceans can't” 8/17/12 http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/etzioni-space-oceans/)//EAZYEWashington (CNN) -- While space travel still gets a lot of attention, not enough attention has been accorded to a major new expedition to the deepest point in the ocean, some 7 miles deep -- the recent journey by James Cameron, on behalf of National Geographic. The cover story of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs lays out the "Case for Space." "60 Minutes" recently ran a story about the dire effects on Florida's space industry of scaling back our extraterrestrial endeavors. Newt Gingrich gained attention earlier this year by calling for building a permanent base on the moon. And President Obama has talked of preparing to eventually send Americans into orbit around Mars. Actually, there are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to explore space in ways that are safer and much less

costly , and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in

particular. The main costs of space exploration arise from the fact that we are set on sending humans, rather than robots. The reasons such efforts drive up the costs include: A human needs a return ticket, while a robot can go one way. Space vehicles for humans must be made safe, while we can risk a bunch of robots without losing sleep. Robots are much easier to feed, experience little trouble when subject to prolonged weightlessness, and are much easier to shield from radiation. And they can do most tasks humans can. British astronomer royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that the practical case

(for manned flights) gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg calls manned missions "an incredible waste of money" and argues that "for the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on Mars we could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars." The main argument for using humans is a public relations one. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it in Foreign Affairs, "China's latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another 'Sputnik moment' for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts." Also, astronauts are said to inspire our youth to become scientists and explorers. However, it is far from established that we cannot achieve the same effects by making other R&D projects our main

priority. Take the oceans, about which we know much less than the dark side of the moon. Ninety percent of the ocean floor has not even been charted, and while we have been to the moon, the technology to explore the ocean's floors is still being developed. For example, a permanent partially-submerged sea exploration station, called the SeaOrbiter, is currently in development. The oceans play a major role in controlling our climate. But we have not learned yet how to use

them to cool us off rather than contribute to our overheating. Ocean organisms are said to hold the promise of cures for an array of diseases . An examination of the unique eyes of skate (ray fish) led to advances in combating blindness, the horseshoe crab was crucial in developing a test for bacterial contamination, and sea urchins helped in the development of test-tube fertilization.

Non-Unique – NASA Underfunded Now

NASA is underfunded nowGrinberg (political writer and media analyst for Politix) 6/22/14 http://politix.topix.com/news/12713-why-nasa-budget-needs-big-bang-from-congress

If you want to know about innovation in the U.S. government then lift off with NASA. This is one federal agency in need of a big budget boost. NASA is a crown jewel of public sector innovation and a global role model for groundbreaking scientific research and discovery. However, more funding is needed by Congress for NASA to truly maximize its potential for the American people and the world. Rich History, Challenging Future NASA serves as a reminder to the USA of what's possible when government harnesses the space agency's full potential, as evidenced by a rich history of landmark achievement. These historic accomplishments range from landing men on the moon 45 years ago, to current breakthroughs via the Mars Rovers, in addition to amazing findings by the Hubble and Kepler Space Telescopes. For example, the Kepler Space Telescope is locating hundreds of planets orbiting stars similar to our own - some of which resemble Earth and may harbor life.

NASA’s budget is shrinking now – space travel is being deprioritizedSpace Travel.com 6/8/11 NASA Spending Shift to Benefit Centers Focused on Science and Technology http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NASA_Spending_Shift_to_Benefit_Centers_Focused_on_Science_and_Technology_999.html

Euroconsult along with the consulting firm Omnis have announced the findings of a study foreseeing a significant shift in NASA spending toward Earth science and R and D programs and away from legacy spaceflight activities. According to the report "NASA Spending Outlook: Trends to 2016," NASA's budget, which

will remain flat at around $18.7 billion for the next five years, will also be characterized by

significant shifts from space operations to technology development and science. With the shift in budget authority, NASA Centers focused on Earth observation, space technology, and

aeronautics will see increases in funding, while those involved in human spaceflight will see major funding reductions. Indeed, the termination of the Space Shuttle program will lead to a budget cut over $1 billion for Space Operations, resulting in a 21% budget cut for the Johnson Space Center. Overall, the agency's budget for R and D will account for about 50% of all NASA spending.

NASA is underfunded nowGrinberg (political writer and media analyst for Politix) 6/22/14 http://politix.topix.com/news/12713-why-nasa-budget-needs-big-bang-from-congressIf you want to know about innovation in the U.S. government then lift off with NASA. This is one federal agency in need of a big budget boost. NASA is a crown   jewel   of public sector innovation and a global role model for groundbreaking scientific research and discovery. However, more funding is needed by Congress for NASA to truly maximize its potential for the American

people and the world. Rich History, Challenging Future NASA serves as a reminder to the USA of what's possible when government harnesses the space agency's full potential , as evidenced by a rich history of landmark achievement. These historic accomplishments range from landing men on the moon 45 years ago, to current breakthroughs via the Mars Rovers, in addition to amazing findings by the Hubble and Kepler Space

Telescopes. For example, the Kepler Space Telescope is locating hundreds of planets orbiting stars similar to our own - some of which resemble   Earth   and may harbor life.

NASA receiving severe budget cuts – forcing program cancellation Jeff Foust 5/30/14 (National Geographic) “NASA Facing New Space Science Cuts”http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/"The unknown and unexplored areas of space spark human curiosity," he went on, applauding recent discoveries such as the most Earth-like world orbiting a nearby star discovered so far by NASA's Kepler Space Telescope.¶ But the reality is that while the stars and planets beckon, a budget battle is brewing over NASA , the $17.6-billion civilian space agency. Cuts threaten

spacecraft and telescopes, even as NASA struggles to clarify its mission in the post-space shuttle era. (Related: "Future of Spaceflight.")¶ Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the space agency's budget has steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6 percent. A long-running annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the past two years, as budget cuts, including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion dollars from 2012 to 2013. The 2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.¶ In addition, a fundamental debate is under way over the future exploration aims of NASA. The Obama Administration favors "stepping stone" plans leading to an asteroid visit in the next decade; congressional representatives call for a return to the

moon.¶ A National Research Council report released in late 2012 called NASA's strategic plan to explore asteroids "vague," adding that the agency's explanations did not explain "why it is worthy of taxpayer investment."¶ The debate over funding the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)—which was barred from receiving federal dollars in a 1993 congressional vote that scrubbed its ten-million-dollar yearly operating cost—mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate about paying for space science. Already squeezed by decades of straitened funding, a variety of NASA missions, ranging

from an infrared space telescope to a 747-mounted observatory, now face cancellation.¶ Difficult Choices¶ When NASA released its 2015 budget proposal in March, it dropped a bombshell on the astronomical community. The proposal cut funding for the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a 747 jetliner equipped with a 2.5-meter (8.2-foot) telescope that can make observations above most of our atmosphere's infrared-absorbing water vapor.¶ Unless NASA finds a new partner to take over its share of SOFIA's operating costs, about $85 million a year, the proposed budget would force the agency to mothball the observatory—even though it began routine operations earlier this year.¶ NASA administrator Charles Bolden said SOFIA was a victim of limited budgets that had led the agency to prioritize other programs, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and a 2020 Mars rover mission.¶ "It turned out that we had to make very difficult choices about where we go with astrophysics and planetary science and Earth science, and SOFIA happened to be what fell off the plate this time," he said shortly after the budget proposal came out.¶ The space agency is also facing some difficult choices about what ongoing space missions it can afford to keep running. Every two years 9 convenes panels, known as senior reviews, to examine the performance of missions that have exceeded their original lifetimes. The reviews are designed to ensure that the science these missions produce is worth the continuing expense, but it's rare for such reviews to recommend ending a mission before the spacecraft can simply no longer operate.¶ This year, though, is different.

AT Tradeoff Link – Not Zero Sum

Space and ocean spending are not zero sumPhil Plait, 5/24/2009, Discover Magazine, “from distant planets to the deep blue sea,” http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/24/from-distant-planets-to-the-deep-blue-sea/#.U62UgY2VkSc

His basic premise in the HuffPo piece is that we should be spending that money on deep sea research, and not space. This is the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. Here’s a thought he doesn’t talk about: why not fund both? Yes, there is not as much money to go around as there used to be, but why suggest we cut off funds for one kind of research to feed another? Sure, oceanography is important, interesting, and could yield economic boons, but so does space exploration. His strawman argument of NASA helping create Teflon is pretty awful; he ignores the impacts of, say, weather satellites, communication satellites, solar weather prediction, the huge benefit computers got from Apollo, and the creation of the digital photography industry.¶ Just to give you some piffling examples.¶ You can read the links I provided at the top of this article for more. And if you think Etzioni is not really attacking NASA — and hurting all of scientific research — in his article, then read how he ends it:¶ Granted, Obama has more urgent priorities than worrying about either outer space or deep oceans. However, presidents have assistants, and they have assistants. Somebody, one cannot but hope, can bring some sense into setting priorities in spending those dollars dedicated to exploration. These may well be dedicated to discovering ways to fight disease and finding sustainable new sources of energy. But do not look for NASA for much help.¶ That is, to be blunt, ridiculous. Not the first part; he’s correct there. But that last part simply and baldly pits all of research against NASA, and that is grossly unfair. Not only that, it’s dead wrong. For example, the NOAA — which does the type of research Etzioni is suggesting we do instead of space exploration — got about an 8% increase in its budget from 2008 to 2009; NASA got about 5%. DOE science got 15%. In total numbers, NASA’s budget is much larger than NOAA, but that’s not surprising since, in general, it’s harder and more expensive to get into space than it is to explore the oceans. But we do spend quite a bit on the exploration Etzioni is supporting.

AT Mars Colonization – NASA Doesn’t Have Enough Funding

Even with the current budget, NASA can’t even finance a mission to Mars, let alone colonizationTony Reichhardt, 6/25/2014, Air & Space Magazine, “To Mars! (But not the way we’re going),” http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/mars-not-way-were-going-180951855/?no-ist

NASA will need more money¶ Without a significant boost in the space agency’s budget, we should forget about Mars, says the panel. Sending humans to the Red Planet will cost on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, and even though this will be amortized over decades, the nation should be prepared to pay that cost. Americans should also understand that people will likely die carrying out such an ambitious mission.¶ Spaceflight is popular, but only up to a point¶ This wasn’t the typical committee of ex-NASA officials and aerospace engineers, repeating the same tired arguments. The panel included historians, economists (co-chair Mitch Daniels is a former head of the U.S. government budget office), and in Roger Tourangeau, one of the leading academic experts on public opinion. As a result, their analysis of public support for spaceflight goes far beyond counting Twitter followers and Facebook likes, or relying on quickie polls to show that people “like space.” Basically, Americans want a human spaceflight program, but it’s far from a priority. “At any given time, a relatively small proportion of the U.S. public pays close attention to space exploration,” the committee wrote. Furthermore, “most Americans do not favor increased spending on space exploration”—which seems a serious problem, given the need to increase NASA’s budget. But, said Daniels in a press briefing timed for the report’s release, this may not be a showstopper. If the public won’t demand more spending, neither is it likely to object if leaders invest more in space, especially if NASA can show tangible results.¶ The United States can’t go it alone¶ If NASA aims to send people to Mars, the program will have to be international, and other nations will have to contribute well above the amounts they’ve historically invested in human spaceflight. China should be included.¶ NASA needs an overhaul¶ NASA facilities that are obsolete or don’t contribute to the mission should be closed. (This, of course, requires wise management by Congress, whose political patronage sometimes keeps NASA programs alive beyond the point of usefulness.)¶ If the report’s conclusions sound blunt, they’re meant to. As Daniels told reporters, “We recognize that many of our recommendations will be seen by many as unrealistic—to which we would only observe that, absent changes along the lines we are recommending, the goal of reaching Mars in any meaningful timeframe is itself unrealistic.”

Colonization impossible – it costs hundreds of billions of dollars to even finance a mission, and NASA doesn’t have thatLedyard King, 6/25/2014, JC Online, “Daniels: Mars trip a daunting challenge,” http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/06/25/mitch-daniels-mars-mission-daunting-challenge/11368473/

It will take unprecedented unity, funding and international teamwork to land astronauts on Mars within the next 30 years, the co-chairmen of an independent government panel advocating such a mission told a congressional committee Wednesday.¶ Then the two co-chairmen got a glimpse of why those goals won’t come easy:¶ • GOP lawmakers at Wednesday’s hearing bashed the Obama administration for abandoning a return-to-the-moon mission in favor of using an asteroid as a steppingstone to Mars.¶ • Democrats said Republicans have no right to complain about lack of money for the space program when they’ve pushed for budget cuts.¶ • And lawmakers from both parties raised doubts about whether potential foreign partners, notably China, can be trusted.¶ Mitch Daniels, co-chairman of the National Research Council panel that issued the 285-page report earlier this month, acknowledged the enormousness of the task.¶ “Getting humans to the surface of Mars will be a daunting challenge,” Daniels, now president of Purdue University and a former two-term Indiana

governor, told members of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “Succeeding in this endeavor will require, we believe, a very different way of doing business than the nation has been practicing in recent decades.”¶ The other co-chairman, Jonathan Lunine, who directs Cornell University’s Center for Radiophysics and

Space Research, told lawmakers that a Mars mission will cost “hundreds of billions” over the next two to three decades and may not be an easy sell to the public.¶ The National Research Council’s report concludes that

exploring Mars — a concept that the committee backs — will require a plan that enjoys almost total support, full funding, and involvement by private and international partners from the get-go.

NASA doesn’t have enough funding to colonize MarsRT News, 6/23/2014, “NASA plans to colonize Mars,” http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/

Currently, the American space agency is planning to put a human on Mars in 2035 – a plan that depends on the successful completion of a few different missions, as well as stable funding over the course of the next couple of decades. As RT reported earlier this month, a new study by the US National Research Council found that under NASA’s current budget trajectory, reaching the Red Planet would be unlikely.¶ “Absent a very fundamental change in the nation’s way of doing business, it is not realistic to believe that we can achieve the consensus goal of reaching Mars,” said Mitch Daniels, the former Indiana governor and co-chair of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Human Spaceflight.

AT Mars Colonization Solves Extinction

Life on Mars is not any safer than life on Earth – colonization does not solve the risk of extinctionWilliams 10 (Linda, Physics Instructor, Santa Rosa Junior College, Spring, Peace Review Journal of Social Justice, “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization”, http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_peacereview.pdf) CH

The Destruction of Earth Threat According to scientific theory, the destruction of Earth is a certainty. About five billion years from now, when our sun exhausts its nuclear fuel, it will expand in size and envelope the inner planets, including the Earth, and burn them into oblivion. So yes, we are doomed, but we have 5 billion years, plus or minus a few hundred million, to plan our extraterrestrial escape. The need to colonize the Moon or Mars to guarantee our survival based on this fact is not pressing. There are also real risks due to collisions with asteroids and comets, though none are of immediate threat and do not necessitate extraterrestrial colonization. There are many Earth-based technological strategies that can be developed in time to mediate such astronomical threats such as gravitational tugboats that drag the objects out of range. The solar system could also potentially be exposed to galactic sources of high-energy gamma ray bursts that could fry all life on Earth, but any Moon or Mars base would face a similar fate. Thus, Moon or Mars human based colonies would not protect us from any of these astronomical threats in the near future.

Colonization Impossible

Terraforming fails – Mars does not have a magnetic field. Colonies would be destroyed by lethal doses of solar radiationJosh Briggs, 2013, Discovery, “5 hurdles to conquer before colonizing Mars,” http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/5-hurdles-conquer-before-colonizing-mars.htm

Even though it's the closest planet to Earth for sustaining life, Mars is currently uninhabitable by humans. Yes, it has an atmosphere, wind, clouds and days are similar in length to ours at 24 hour, 37 minutes. Mars even has seasonal changes too [source: Britannica].¶ But that's essentially where the comparisons stop. By all accounts, Mars is a geologically dead planet. While Mars has plenty of volcanoes and geological evidence that there was tectonic activity at some point in its history, that's not the case anymore. There is no air pressure to hold in water and Mars suffers from the lack of a magnetic field that would shield it from harmful solar winds [source: Fox]. Any effort to process Mars into a livable planet (i.e.

terraform) would have to take all these factors into account.¶ Perhaps it would be possible to jumpstart the atmosphere by turning the carbon dioxide-rich air into oxygen much the way plants on Earth clean our air.

But Mars still wouldn't have a magnetic field. Without a magnetic shield for protection, extreme waves of solar radiation strip away the Martian atmosphere, thus subjecting humans to lethal doses of radiation. Evidence suggests the polar ice caps have the remnants of a magnetic shield and are safe from the extreme solar radiation [source: Fox]. If nothing else, terraforming could be limited to those regions.

Terraforming is impossible – it will take hundreds of years and we do not have the techJuarez 13More than 100,000 want to go to Mars and not return, project says By Jennifer Juarez, CNNMexico.com, and Elizabeth Landau, CNN updated 6:06 PM EDT, Thu August 15, 2013 | Filed under: Innovations http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/innovation/mars-one-applications/Each lander that Mars One sends will be able to carry about 5,511 pounds of "useful load" to Mars, he said. After eight missions, more than 44,000 pounds of supplies and people are expected to have arrived. The capsules themselves, whose weight is not included in that number, will become part of the habitat. Food and solar panels will go in the capsules. Earth won't be sending much water or oxygen though -- those will be manufactured on Mars, Lansdorp said. Astronauts will filter Martian water from the Martian soil. "We will evaporate it and condense it back into its

liquid state," he said. "From the water we can make hydrogen and oxygen, and we will use the oxygen for a breathing atmosphere inside the habitat. This will be prepared by the rovers autonomously

before the humans arrive." It sounds like terraforming, a process in which the conditions of a planet are modified to make it habitable, but Lansdorp said it isn't. "We will create an atmosphere that looks like the atmosphere on Earth, so you could say that we are terraforming the habitat. But to terraform the entire planet, that's a project that will take hundreds and hundreds of years," he added. A dangerous mission In spite of the risks of space travel, the Mars One founder said he is convinced of the viability of the project. However, some space travel experts have said the risks are far too high to carry out these manned missions to Mars, a distance that humans have never traveled. Radiation is a big concern. NASA does not allow their astronauts to expose themselves to radiation levels that could increase their risk of developing cancer by more than 3%. To maintain the radiation exposure standards that NASA requires, the maximum time an astronaut can spend in space "is anywhere from about 300 days to about 360 days for the solar minimum activity. For solar maximum, in ranges anywhere from about 275 days to 500 days," said Eddie Semones, NASA spaceflight radiation officer. A round-trip journey to Mars could expose astronauts to the maximum amount of radiation allowed in a career under current NASA standards, according to a recent study by scientists at the space agency. Mars One is planning a one-way journey, which doesn't negate the problem, and being on Mars could expose astronauts to even more

radiation, depending on how long they stay and what the shielding conditions are like. Radiation damages cells' DNA, which can lead to cell death or permanent changes that may result in cancer. However, "there's no convincing human evidence for excess abnormalities in offspring of radiation-exposed adults," Semones said. While orbiting the Earth, astronauts get exposed to greater concentrations of cosmic background radiation than here on Earth in addition to charged particles trapped in the upper atmosphere and from the sun, said Robert J. Reynolds, epidemiologist at the University of Texas Health Science Center. As a spacecraft moves into deep space, the people on board would be exposed to even more cosmic radiation and solar particles, which is "fairly dangerous," Reynolds said. Interestingly, according to Reynolds, astronauts' risk of dying of cancer is lower than that of the general public because they tend to be in shape, eat well, don't smoke and receive careful monitoring from doctors. Of course, none of them have been to Mars. Semones emphasized that NASA does not study the health effects of Mars colonization and that it's focusing on shorter recognition missions of the surface of Mars. "We're not looking at colonization of Mars or anything. We're not focusing our research on those kinds of questions." Can it be done? Mars One isn't the only group hoping to make history by sending people to the red planet. The Inspiration Mars Foundation wants to launch two people -- a man and a woman -- on a 501-day, round-trip journey to Mars and back in 2018 without ever touching down. 501 days in space with your spouse: Could you handle it? At this time there is no technology that can protect astronauts from an excess of space radiation. "The maximum number of days to stay with our standards is on the order of 500 days. So any mission that would exceed 500 days would not be doable," Semones said. Reynolds agreed: "At this point it's completely infeasible to try to send someone to Mars unless we can get there faster or we develop better shielding for a spacecraft." NASA is working on engines intended to cut the travel time to Mars by the 2030s, but those systems won't be ready for many years, Chris Moore, NASA's deputy director of advanced exploration systems, told CNN this year. In the meantime, Moore said engineers could try to limit travelers' exposures by designing a spacecraft in such a way that it provides more protection. But Mars One founder Lansdorp insisted his group will get people landing on Mars by 2023. "The risks of space travel in general are already very high, so radiation is really not our biggest concern," he said. If that all sounds good, you can still sign up. But remember: You can never go home again.

Technology costs make colonization impossibleLoder, ex-professor Emeritus at the University of New Hampshire, is known for his work to end the energy crisis, 2003(Theodore C., “Implications of Outside-The-Box Technologies on Future Space Exploration and Colonization”, EBSCO, 2-5, http://www.theorionproject.org/en/documents/STAIF03Loder.pdf, 6-16-2011, SRF)

Human exploration and, ultimately, colonization of low earth orbit, the moon, asteroids, and other planets will never "get off the ground” with the present costs of technology. At present the United States' only public human lift capability is the nearly two-decade-old shuttle fleet, which is expensive to maintain and limited in turn-around flight capability. Recent projected estimates by NASA for more than the next decade plan for about eight flights per year at a cost of approximately $300 million per flight with lower costs for two more flights (NASA, 2002). With only five flights per year considered to be a "safe" number and ten flights per year considered the maximum number, it is obvious that almost any kind of human exploration and colonization is nearly out the question in the foreseeable future. Even the less expensive Russian launch costs are still prohibitive for significant advances in space exploration and colonization.

Humans can’t colonize space-too many technical obstaclesLaunius, Chief Historian for NASA and author of many books on aerospace history, 2010(Roger D., “Can we colonize the solar system? Human Biology and survival in the extreme space environment”, Science Direct, Volume: 34 No. 3, 124, SRF)

Although microbial life might survive the extreme conditions of space, for Homo sapiens sapiens the space environment remains remarkably dangerous to life. One space life scientist, Vadim Rygalov, remarked that ensuring human life during spaceflight was largely about providing the basics of human physiological needs. From the most critical-meaning that its absence would cause immediate death, to the least critical-these include such constants available here on Earth of atmospheric pressure, breathable oxygen, temperature, drinking water, food, gravitational pull on physical systems, radiation mitigation, and others of a less immediate nature. As technologies, and knowledge about them, stand at this

time, humans are able to venture into space for short periods of less than a year only by supplying all of these needs either by taking everything with them (oxygen, food, air, etc.) or creating them artificially (pressurized vehicles, centrifugal force to substitute for gravity, etc.) Space-flight would be much easier if humans could go into hibernation during the extremes of spaceflight, as did the Streptococcus mitis bacteria. Resolving these issues has proven difficult but not insurmountable for such basic spaceflight activities as those undertaken during the heroic age of space exploration when the United States and the Soviet Union raced to the Moon. Overcoming the technological hurdles encountered during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs were child’s play in comparison to the threat to human life posed by long duration, deep space missions to such places as Mars. Even the most sophisticated of those, the lunar landings of Project Apollo, were relatively short camping trips on an exceptionally close body in the solar system, and like many camping trips undertaken by Americans the astronauts took with them everything they would need to use while there. This approach will continue to work well until the destination is so far away that resupply from Earth becomes highly problematic if not impossible if the length of time to be gone is so great that resupply proves infeasible. There is no question that the U.S. could return to the Moon in a more dynamic and robust version of Apollo; it could also build a research station there and resupply it from Earth on a regular basis. In this instance, the lunar research station might look something like a more sophisticated and difficult to support version of the Antarctic research stations. A difficult challenge, yes; but certainly it is something that could be accomplished with presently envisioned technologies. The real difficulty is that at the point a lunar research station becomes a colony profound changes to the manner in which humans interact with the environment beyond Earth must take place. Countermeasures for core challenges-gravity, radiation, particulates, and ancillary effects-provide serious challenges for humans engaged in space colonization.

Colonization fails – solar rays, lack of oxygen, lack of tech and terraforming failure Williams, Physics Instructor, Santa Rosa College, 10(Lynda, Peace Review Journal of Social Justice, The New Arms Race in Outer Space 22.1, “Irrational Dreams of Space Colonization.” Spring 2010, http://www.scientainment.com/lwilliams_peacereview.pdf, AH)

What do the prospects of colonies or bases on the Moon and Mars offer? Both the Moon and Mars host extreme environments that are uninhabitable to humans without very sophisticated technological life supporting systems beyond any that are feasible now or will be available in the near future. Both bodies are subjected to deadly levels of solar radiation and are void of atmospheres that could sustain oxygen-based life forms such as humans. Terra- forming either body is not feasible with current technologies or within any reasonable time frames so any colony or base would be restricted to living in space capsules or trailer park like structures which could not support a sufficient number of humans to perpetuate and sustain the species in any long term manner.

AT NASA Key – Private Sector Solves

The private sector solves Mars colonizationSebastian Anthony, 6/18/2014, Extreme Tech, “SapceX says it will put humans on Mars by 2026, almost 10 years ahead of NASA,” http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184640-spacex-says-it-will-put-humans-on-mars-by-2026-almost-10-years-ahead-of-nasa

Elon Musk, speaking to CNBC about how the future of humankind is rather closely tied to our ability to get off this planet, is “hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10 to 12 years” — with SpaceX rockets and spacecraft, of course. This lines up with some of his previous comments about establishing a Mars colony in the 2020s. Meanwhile, NASA recently announced that it would try to put a human on Mars in 2035 — and only if it can secure the necessary funding and carry out a number of important milestone missions beforehand. Tantalizingly, Musk also spoke about SpaceX going public on the stock market — perhaps to raise the necessary funds to fly (and establish a colony?) on Mars.

AT Must Get Off the Rock

Space is unsustainable for humans – only earth can sustain life Trevors, J. (Trevors: University of Guelph and Adjunct Professor, a 28 year record of microbiology research, graduate and undergraduate teaching, consulting and editing/editorships has been achieved) ’09 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009 “The Earth Is the Best Place to Live” – http://www.springerlink.com/content/p68867688844p083/fulltext.pdf

The Earth is still the best planet to live despite our current problems/challenges of human

population growth, total global pollution, global climate change, pandemics, wars, hunger and intolerance, to name a few examples. The universe has to be billions of years old to have sufficient time to produce the

elements required for living organisms and their evolution. One would think that all humans would therefore take better care of the only known outpost of life in the universe. The Earth is the correct distance from our sun to maintain water in its liquid state (and gaseous and solid states) necessary for living organisms. Water has a low viscosity, high melting point, high boiling point and can act as a hydrogen donor and acceptor. Water can buffer against shifts in temperature. Water floats when it freezes and becomes ice, and reaches its maximum density at 4°C not at 0°C. These characteristics have immense importance for aquatic life. The size and mass of the Earth are correct for life. A small planet does not have sufficient gravity to hold an atmosphere such as ours. If the Earth was larger, the atmosphere would be denser and restrict light necessary for photosynthesis. No photosynthesis means no life as we know it on the Earth. The Earth is as good as it gets for the continued survival of all species, if humans simply reduce human population growth and the total pollution of the planet. This will require international cooperation and the efforts of all people, especially in the affluent developed countries that over pollute and over consume. The affluent countries must also provide the resources to assist less affluent countries with their basic human needs and rights. This is all doable if humans simply redirect efforts from conflicts and wars to international cooperation.

AT Overview Effect

The overview effect fails—poor technology, psychology, and apathy prove. Okushi and Dudley-Flores 07 [Jun Okushi, NASA-trained space architect, 2 decades of experience in space development, former NASA grant research student, codeveloper of the International Space Station. Marilyn Dudley-Flores, policy analyst and space policy expert] “Space and Perceptions of Space in Spacecraft: An Astrosociological Perspective.” Paper for the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SPACE 2007 Conference & Exposition. Web. DA 7/3/11. http://www.astrosociology.com/Library/PDF/Contributions/Space%202007%20Articles/Space%20and%20Perceptions.pdf

The average human being has not experienced the view from space on a personal basis, although these pictures from space have been around for upwards to 40 years. Subsequent years have brought more space missions, both human and robotic, with fabulous imagery. Robotically, we have stood on the ground on Mars, we have seen up close mighty impacts on Jupiter, the rings of Saturn, and towering dune fields on Titan. We have even seen the great columns of hydrogen clouds spanning light years that are the incubation places of stars and looked back in time toward the very birth of the Cosmos. Why haven’t the peoples of the Earth been subsumed by this overwhelming experience of viewing things in space and the world from the space? Why haven’t they beaten their swords into plow shares, held hands and sang Kum Bah Yah, and turned their attention to turning the tide against global warming, a fairly immediate threat as time is kept over generations that can kill more people than all of the wars of the Earth put together? A. Searching for Answers A clue to this enigma lies in a prediction that failed to come true that was made by Sir Arthur C. Clarke in his novel 2061: Odyssey 3 (1987, p. 4). 6 In the story, the Earth had become relatively peaceful once everyone had access to free long-distance telephone calling service. With the Internet and the quality of communications technology today, we can make free long-distance telephone calls. At least those of us who can access, can operate, and can afford the technology can make those calls. One can be in London and make a phone call to someone in Peshawar and the other party sounds like he is speaking from the next room. But, there are still wars, India and Pakistan might yet fight a limited nuclear exchange, and the large part of Earth’s population hasn’t yet caught on to the impending devastation of global warming. What is the problem? The answer to that has to do with the inadequacy of the delivery systems of these images from space and to the fact that studies of how humans comprehend spatial and other types of relationships on the ground, in space, and across cultures are still in the infancy of synthesis and application. Lack of political will is another problem. In An Inconvenient Truth, both the documentary and the book, 7 Albert Gore also spoke of the “backburner” attitude that his American congressional colleagues demonstrated when he gave them slide shows about global warming. The problems on the radar screens of congressional constituents were more immediate so their representatives did not move to act to hammer out legislation to help offset the more overwhelming planetary issue. Sitting in the gravity well of the Earth, with some people being able to see pretty pictures from space, and with some people being able to talk to other people cheaply at a distance still hasn’t communicated the gravity of our situation. The planetary situation awareness of the average person is poor. It isn’t very real to most people that Earth is a planet in space, that it is in danger from global warming, and that seeing it from space helps us assess the condition of the planet and provides us with direction how to keep it livable

The Overview Effect is not supported by scientifically rigorous evidence.William Sims Bainbridge, Co-Director of Human-Centered Computing at the National Science Foundation, has served as a tenured Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Washington, Illinois State University, and Towson University, holds a Ph.D. in Sociology from Harvard University, 2006 (Goals In Space: American Values and the Future of Technology, Electronic Version of a book originally published in 1991, Available Online at http://mysite.verizon.net/wsbainbridge/system/goals.pdf, Accessed 06-26-2011, p. 83)

Several of the Idealistic goals assert that space travel gives a new perspective to the astronauts who look back at Earth from afar and to those Earth-bound enthusiasts who participate

vicariously in voyages beyond our world. From the viewpoint of space, we see ourselves, our nations, and our planet in a new

light. In a recent book, Frank White (1987) reports that astronauts commonly experience “the overview effect,” a radical shift in consciousness achieved by seeing the Earth as a unity and from outside the traditional limits of human

experience. He documents this thesis with material from a number of interviews, but unfortunately his data collection and theoretical analysis were not conducted in a manner that social scientists would consider systematic. Furthermore, although White considers “consciousness” to be the essential ingredient of any culture, he does not draw upon any of the standard literature on this conceptually slippery topic. Yet, his hypothesis that from the new world-view offered by space exploration will come a series of new civilizations is a stimulating expression of the basic faith of the Idealistic class.