Space Tradeoff DA

Shells

1NC
NASs budget is stable but the fiscal environment is
tight
Casey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, The House Passes a
$435 million increase to NASAs budget,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0529-the-house-justpassed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html

After a multi-day floor debate, the House of Representatives passed its 2015 funding bill for Commerce,

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
Justice, Science, and related agencies by a vote of 321-87.

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

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.
receives too little funding in my opinion) but overall

Ocean and space funding are zero-sum the plan causes a

tradeoff
Katherine 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
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
As usual,

pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a
Jenny Craigsized portion of the pie. At about

$17 billion, government-funded space exploration

The National Oceanic and

accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget.

Atmospheric AdministrationNASAs soggy counterpartgets much less, a bit more than

$5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. But the way Shnlein 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 explorationChristopher Columbus long
petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillarys quest to climb to the
top of Everestwere 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

is a finite pool that you have to draw
from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare, says Shnlein. In
money which has to be accounted for, and it

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 doesnt hurt. The private sector is stepping up as public falls down. Were really returning
to the way it always was.

Mars colonization is NASAs top priority

RT News, 6/23/2014, NASA plans to colonize Mars,
http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/

the agencys 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, NASAs 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, Jupiters moon Europa, and Saturns moon
NASA may not be planning to put a human on Mars until the 2030s, but

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

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.
exploring Mars, because once we get to Mars we will set up some sort of permanent presence."

Mars colonization solves extinction

Geranios 10 (Nicholas, MSNBC, 11/15/2010, Scientists propose one-way trips
to Mars,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_sciencespace/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 projects
Jeff Foust, 5/30/14, National Geographic, NASA facing new space science
cuts, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-spacepolitics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/
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
Congress to the Rescue? Still,

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

"With this
funding increase, we will be able to keep Mars 2020 on track and begin an
for the mission, although Congress provided some funding for it in 2013 and 2014.

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 tight
Ivelina Kunina, 6/1/2014, Liberty Voice, NASA budget increase brings men
closer to mars, http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/nasa-budget-increase-bringsmen-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

The government discussed the potential budget

increase for NASA, as well as the Space Agencys 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,
Administration (NASA).

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 NASAs 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

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 postmaking important discoveries.

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

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
had trimmed close to a billion dollars between the years of 2012 and 2013.

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 Doesnt Have Enough $ to Colonize

Mars
NASAs budget is sufficient to start colonizing Mars, but
stable funding is key
Casey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, The House Passes a
$435 million increase to NASAs budget,
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2014/0529-the-house-justpassed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html
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
NASAs current budget trajectory, reaching the Red Planet would be
unlikely. Absent a very fundamental change in the nations way of doing business, it is not realistic
Currently,

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.
[NASAs

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

agencys 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 = NASAs Top Priority

Mars colonization is NASAs top priority
Laurel 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-areprime-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 Jupiters
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,

The ultimate goal is to colonize the planet and establish a

permanent base there, she said.
Stofan said.

Link Extensions

Link Oceans
Ocean exploration funding directly trades off with Space
exploration
Diamandis 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-explorationmay-just-save-us-0)//EAZYE
Before humans explored frontiers beyond our atmosphere, they sought out frontiers here on our own

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
planet. And

exploration? Who will steward the ocean and dive to its depths to uncover its mysteries?There was a longheld 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

tradeoff
Chad English, 3/25/2013, Compassblogs, budget trade-offs: a zero-sum
game, http://compassblogs.org/blog/2013/03/25/what-to-do-when-thebudget-becomes-a-zero-sum-game/
Each Appropriations subcommittee works with their slice of the budget, called (opaquely) their 302(b) sub-

Once those sub-allocations are set, its a

zero-sum game within that subcommittee; a dollar to one program
allocation. But heres the important part:

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 thats set, any additional dollar that goes to NSF must
come out of one of these other agencys 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 NASA
Amitai Etzioni, Summer 2014, Issues in Science and Technology, Final
Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---finalfrontier-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-ofseas/)//EAZYE
the NOAA will open all the data collected about this
unexplored regions life and geography to scientists, private
companies and armchair explorers. The information will be uploaded in a format that
Over the next week,

will allow anyone with mapping software like Google Inc.'sGOOG -0.06% Google Maps or Esri to create data
layers containing the newly charted terrains 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 areas resources.Although the oceans around Americas coast

science budgets have made this kind of pure

exploration rare, said Mr. Shank. Usually a group of scientists get funded for specific research
remain largely unmapped, tightened

and that data doesnt come out for two years, Mr. Shank says. This is all open. Collaboration is getting

NOAA hopes to expand ocean

exploration over the next seven years by drawing funding from
jumpstarted. Science is getting jumpstarted.

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
funding
Lawler, 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 scientistseems 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 NASAs budget
Foust 4/18/12 http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/04/18/noaa-concerns-overshadow-nasa-insenate-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.

(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 NOAAs satellite programs to NASA. Without that transfer,
NASAs budget is $41 million less than the agencys fiscal year 2012 appropriations and
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

just above the $17.71 billion requested by the administration. The chairwoman of the Commerce, Justice,

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (DMD), singled out NOAA for criticism in her comments about the budget, explaining
the decision to move NOAAs programs to NASA. Unfortunately, the Committee has
lost confidence in NOAAs ability to control procurement costs or
Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations subcommittee,

articulate reliable funding profiles. Therefore, we have taken the

unprecedented step of transferring responsibility for building our
Nations 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 committees 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 years 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 administrations budget
request. The subcommittee restored $100 million to NASAs Mars science programs, although didnt
allocate that funding to any particular Mars program. The administrations 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 programs 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-sum
Marcia Smith, 2/25/2012, Space Policy Online, mars shaping up as NASA
budget battleground, http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/mars-shapingup-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

as everyone fights for scarcer
Future plans for Mars probes are at the center of the

generally and among planetary scientists specifically

resources.
debate.

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

Impact Extensions

Impact Off the Rock

Extinction is inevitable unless we get off the rock
The Space Review 2011 New strategies for exploration and
settlement June 6th, 2011 http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1860/1
That 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, youre
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

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
It's no secret.

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

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.
don't plan ahead. But space rocks may not be the only threat.

"History shows that expensive technological projects are often abandoned after awhile. For example, the
Ancient Egyptians quit building pyramids. So

while we have the chance."

we should be colonizing space now

AT Mars Colonization Impossible

Mars colonization is possible the resources are there and
the environment is suitable
Hender 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,

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
ease and speed of insulation and redundancy.

facilities and other such facilities to allow relaxation and diversional activities. Working facilities will include laboratories,

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
office space, industrial areas( power generation, etc.) workshops, food and other production areas.

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

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.
other means, must also be provided.

We can terraform Mars

Hawkes 92

(Nigel, writer at The London Times, The London times, January 25, Planet X marks the spot, lexis)

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
Thanks to the Mariner and Viking series of spacecraft, we now know that

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

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 water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen exist in sufficient quantities on Mars. Assuming they do, then

atmosphere too much, McKay concedes, to be carried there from Earth. It would have to be produced in factories, large

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
enough to make 100 million tons of CFCs a year, on the planet's surface.

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 wont solve Mars colonization NASA is
key
Sebastian 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-puthumans-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 hed 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. NASAs Mars mission would use the
Orion spacecraft (which is finally almost ready for testing), and the new Space Launch System (which isnt

getting humans to Mars isnt all

that difficult. Yes, the journey is quite long (around 200 days) and theres 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 hasnt yet
landed on the Moon and, at least publicly, it has shared very few plans about how or when it
expected to be ready for a few years yet). Actually

would attempt such a landing. The upcoming manned Dragon capsule will ferry astronauts to the ISS, but it
isnt equipped for a lunar landing or takeoff. This isnt to say that SpaceX couldnt develop and test the
various, exceedingly complex systems required for a Martian landing and takeoff, but 10-12 years is a

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. Its fun (scary?) to think that a commercial company headed up by Elon Musk no less will
pretty tight timeline.

be the first to colonize Mars, but I doubt it. Im hopeful that the first people could be taken to Mars in 10
to 12 years, said Musk on CNBCs 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 cant solve
Firsing 14
(SCOTT FIRSING, 31 JAN 2014, Daily Maverick, Infinity and beyond: the
global rebirth of outer space, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/201401-30-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 Change-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

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
partnerships to achieve the increased capacity goal as well.

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

NASA recently launched its own Mars probe

called MAVEN, which is expected to arrive just three days after Indias on 27 September.
Despite all the other countries accomplishments, Americas 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.
methane gas in Mars atmosphere.

Impact Overview Effect

Mars exploration creates an overview effect that unites
the people of Earth
Barker 2 Donald C. Barker, M.S., M.A., Intl 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 lifes 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

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
deemed important to the enrichment and strength of our culture and future.

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 extinction

Atkinson 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 worlds 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
that recognizes the necessity of difference and
acknowledges the wholeness inherent in diversity. These everpresent, 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.
conciliatory urge

Aff Answers

Oceans > Space

Ocean exploration is comparatively better than space
exploration
Conathan 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/rocketstop-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

why space exploration is outpacing its

ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASAs annual
Administration, or NOAA, to understand

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 programswas about $5 billion, and NOAAs Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7

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 thats not the only similarity between space and ocean
million.

travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. In a time of shrinking budgets and

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
increased scrutiny on the return for our investments,

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 disease
Etzioni 12 (Amitai Etzioni, Staff writer, Mars can wait. Oceans can't
8/17/12 http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/09/opinion/etzioni-spaceoceans/)//EAZYE

Washington (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

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
preparing to eventually send Americans into orbit around Mars. Actually,

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

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
royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that

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

Ninety percent of the ocean

floor has not even been charted, and while we have been to the moon, the technology to
which we know much less than the dark side of the moon.

explore the ocean's floors is still being developed. For example, a permanent partially-submerged sea

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
exploration station, called the SeaOrbiter, is currently in development.

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 now
Grinberg (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.

NASAs budget is shrinking now space travel is being

deprioritized
Space Travel.com 6/8/11 NASA Spending Shift to Benefit Centers
Focused on Science and Technology http://www.spacetravel.com/reports/NASA_Spending_Shift_to_Benefit_Centers_Focused_on_Scie
nce_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 now

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

NASA. This is one

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
If you want to know about innovation in the U.S. government then lift off with
federal agency

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

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.
Telescopes.

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-spacepolitics-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

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
Space Telescope. But the reality is that while the stars and planets beckon, a

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

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
mirrors, in microcosm, the larger debate about paying for space science.

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 infraredabsorbing 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 observatoryeven
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 sum

Phil Plait, 5/24/2009, Discover Magazine, from distant planets to the deep
blue sea,
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/24/from-distantplanets-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. Heres a thought he doesnt 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; hes correct there. But that last part simply and baldly pits all of

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, NASAs budget is much larger than NOAA, but
research against NASA, and that is grossly unfair. Not only that, its dead wrong.

thats not surprising since, in general, its 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 Doesnt Have

Enough Funding
Even with the current budget, NASA cant even finance a
mission to Mars, let alone colonization
Tony Reichhardt, 6/25/2014, Air & Space Magazine, To Mars! (But not
the way were going), http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/mars-notway-were-going-180951855/?no-ist
Without a significant boost in the space agencys
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
NASA will need more money

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 wasnt 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

its

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 explorationwhich seems a serious problem, given the need to increase
NASAs budget. But, said Daniels in a press briefing timed for the reports release, this may not be a
showstopper. If the public wont demand more spending, neither is it likely to object if leaders invest more

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 theyve historically invested in human spaceflight. China
in space, especially if NASA can show tangible results. The United States cant go it alone

should be included. NASA needs an overhaul NASA facilities that are obsolete or dont 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 reports
conclusions sound blunt, theyre meant to. As Daniels told reporters, We recognize that many of our

absent
changes along the lines we are recommending, the goal of reaching Mars in any
meaningful timeframe is itself unrealistic.
recommendations will be seen by many as unrealisticto which we would only observe that,

Colonization impossible it costs hundreds of billions of

dollars to even finance a mission, and NASA doesnt have
that
Ledyard King, 6/25/2014, JC Online, Daniels: Mars trip a daunting
challenge, http://www.jconline.com/story/news/2014/06/25/mitch-danielsmars-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 wont come easy: GOP lawmakers at
Wednesdays 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 theyve 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

Getting humans to
the surface of Mars will be a daunting challenge, Daniels, now president of
report earlier this month, acknowledged the enormousness of the task.

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 Universitys 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 Councils
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 doesnt have enough funding to colonize Mars

RT 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

a new study by the US National

Research Council found that under NASAs current budget trajectory,
reaching the Red Planet would be unlikely. Absent a very
fundamental change in the nations 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
next couple of decades. As RT reported earlier this month,

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 extinction
Williams 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
radiation
Josh Briggs, 2013, Discovery, 5 hurdles to conquer before colonizing
Mars, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/5-hurdles-conquerbefore-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,

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
that's not the case anymore.

[source: Fox]. Any effort to process Mars into a livable planet (i.e. terraform) would have to take all these

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
factors into account.

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 tech
Juarez 13
More 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,

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%.
a distance that humans have never traveled.

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

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
the space agency.

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 radiationexposed 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, roundtrip 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 impossible

Loder, 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 cant colonize space-too many technical obstacles

Launius, 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 childs 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 colonization
Sebastian 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-puthumans-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

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
living organisms and their evolution.

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 4C not at 0C. 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 failspoor 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 havent the peoples of the Earth been subsumed by this
overwhelming experience of viewing things in space and the world from the
space? Why havent 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 Earths population hasnt 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 hasnt communicated the
gravity of our situation. The planetary situation awareness of the average
person is poor. It isnt 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

White (1987) reports that astronauts commonly

experience the overview effect, a radical shift in consciousness achieved by seeing the
light. In a recent book, Frank

Earth as a unity and from outside the traditional limits of human experience. He documents this thesis with

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
material from a number of interviews, but unfortunately

space exploration will come a series of new civilizations is a stimulating expression of the basic faith of the
Idealistic class.