aff

1ac

1acinherency
NOAA cut funding for the Aquarius Reef LabFlorida International University
saved the program but federal funding is key to safeguard the lab and guarantee
high-quality science
Withers 13 (Ashley, Star-News (Wilmington, NC) January 9, 2013, lexis)
A lack of federal support and local funding has forced the University of North Carolina Wilmington to
stop operations at Aquarius, the world's only permanent undersea laboratory - a loss that will take away a key component
of the school's marine science program, a school official said. " Aquarius is unique . It's the only asset like this
in the world," Aquarius director Tom Potts said of the facility in the Florida Keys. "UNCW does lose a little of what makes it
unique by losing this program." But the program is not completely lost. It will soon be operated by Miami-based
Florida International University. FIU President Mark Rosenberg discussed the facility in his spring "Welcome Back" address to
students on Jan. 2. "FIU students and faculty go to great depths for their research. Soon, that will be truer than ever," he wrote.
"Aligned with our strategic commitment to environmental studies, we have submitted a proposal to assume operations of the
Aquarius Reef Base, the world's only operational underwater research center." UNCW took over Aquarius operations in 1991, but
decided not to pursue renewing the agreement on Dec. 31, 2012, after a long struggle to find enough funding. Bob Wicklund,
UNCW's director of federal programs, has worked with members of Congress for years to try to maintain funding for the undersea
lab. "Without federal funding, the

sustainability of federal funding , that's going to be a tough

deal - not only operating it, but getting good science out of it," he said. Aquarius sits in about 60 feet of water
about four miles from shore off Key Largo. With about 400 square feet of living and research space, it allows scientists to live and
work underwater 24 hours a day for one or two week missions. UNCW operated the lab for more than 20 years - "a long time for a
research project to continue on," Wicklund said. "From the standpoint of what Aquarius has done, it has added a real value of what's
happening to the coral reefs," he said. "Now it's being passed on to another university. We just hope they can make it work and make
it continue." The facility costs about $1.5 million a year for basic operations, but the cost jumps to about $3 million when funding
research projects, according to Potts. The

federal budget didn't include money for Aquarius this year, and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) consolidated programs in its ocean exploration
program, eliminating the undersea research program that included Aquarius.
The federal government needs to invest in ocean research and exploration
private funding is inadequate
Rockefeller 13Senator for West Virginia, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation (Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Jun 11 2013, Deep Sea Challenge: Innovative
Partnerships in Ocean Observation, http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=29496bc2-fdb7-47c7-93ef-0def99cf9d6c&Statement_id=e7a711a0-2ddd-48ac-b9e4de831953b9e7&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=6&YearDisplay=2013//cc)
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earths surface, so one would expect that we might understand their complex ecosystems
and environments. But vast depths of the ocean remain complete mysteries to us . We know more about the
surface of Mars than we do about the deepest depths of our oceans. Todays hearing is about bringing the best science and data
together from private companies, research institutions, colleges and universities, and public agencies to improve our knowledge
and understanding of the ocean. The

federal government has a proud and successful history of scientific

research that has given us manned missions to the Moon and exciting potential alternative energy sources.
We know that the federal government can support research that goes straight to our understanding
of difficult problems. Our oceans and environment are facing a crisis. As carbon dioxide increases in our
atmosphere, it simultaneously increases in our ocean. This is making the seas more acidic, which has adverse ramifications for our
ecosystems, communities, and maritime industries like commercial fishing and tourism. Research

into our oceans

changing chemistry must be a priority . With better information about ocean acidification, we
can begin to understand how our marine resources and coastal communities will be affected. This Committee
has fought to increase coordination among federal agencies to monitor ocean acidification, and will consider additional legislation
during this congressional session. Current

federal investments in ocean observation are

woefully inadequate and the self-inflicted budget wounds that Washington is grappling with
do not help. So we need to look for new and innovative ways to fund research that supports and improves
the livelihoods of those who rely on our oceans and also supports and improves the future of ocean research. Already the public-

private partnership model is being successfully applied to ocean research, and that is what two of our witnesses are here today to
discuss. Mr. Camerons ocean expeditions have captured Americas attention and given the ocean observation community incredible
samples that aide scientific research. He has 72 previous dives to his credit, but his dive to the Mariana Trench is perhaps the most
impressive. His expedition has potentially resulted in the discovery of several new species I dont think many people can add that
to their list of accomplishments. The one thing that might be more impressive is that Mr. Cameron isnt satisfied with simply diving
deeper than any other human. He is donating the submersible to make the technological advances from his expeditions available for
future scientific study. Given the general lack of research in many areas of ocean observation, it is encouraging to see that private
groups are forging ahead to fill in the scientific gaps. The

burden should not be on private institutions however.

The federal government has a critical role to play. The first dive to the Mariana Trench was piloted by
a Navy Lieutenant more than 50 years ago. The government used to be at the forefront of ocean observation
and discovery. But fights to blindly reduce government spending have taken many victims,
including scientific research. Until we prioritize spending that will benefit future generations in this country, we will
continue to unnecessarily take victims. The private sector continues to make important investments in research to better understand
vital scientific issues. But the

federal government has yet to receive the potential benefits of signing on

to public-private partnerships. These public-private partnerships present opportunities
to advance scientific research, despite our budget issues. Unfortunately, the governments
unwillingness at this point to signal a serious commitment to scientific research has turned off
some potential partners. We all have a responsibility when it comes to conserving our oceans for
future generations. This responsibility begins with a commitment to federal
investments in scientific research that can help us understand how the oceans are
changing. We are missing opportunities to gain crucial knowledge and without it, we will not be able to stem
the tide and reverse environmental problems that threaten ecosystems and the economic backbones of our coastal communities.

1acplan
The United States federal government should fully fund the Aquarius Reef Base.

1acacidification
Ocean acidification policy is failingits both anthropogenic and economically
devastating
Bienkowski, 13 the daily climate, writer @ nature climate change (Brian, U.S. Effort on Ocean Acidification Needs Focus
on Human Impacts, Jan 11, 2013, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/us-effort-on-ocean-acidificationneeds-focus-on-human-impacts)//AE

A federal plan to tackle ocean acidification must focus more on how the changes will affect
people and the economy, according to a review of the effort by a panel of the National Research Council. "Social issues
clearly can't drive everything but when it's possible they should," said George Somero, chair of the committee
that wrote the report and associate director at Stanford University's Hopkins Marine Station. " If you're setting up a
monitoring station, it should be where there's a shellfish industry, for example ." Acidification
is one of the larger problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions , as oceans
serve as a giant sponge for carbon dioxide. When carbon dioxide is dissolved in seawater, water
chemistry changes and acidity increases. More acidic seawater can hurt ocean creatures,
especially corals and shellfish , because it prevents them from properly developing their skeletons and shells.
Shrinking coral reefs could dent eco-tourism revenue in some coastal areas . It also could trigger
a decline in fish populations dependent on those reefs. Decreasing shellfish populations would
harm the entire ocean food chain , researchers say, particularly affecting people who get their
protein or paycheck from the sea. Globally, fish represent about 6 percent of the protein people eat. The acidification
blueprint was drafted by nine federal agencies in March 2012. It establishes guidelines for federal research, monitoring and
mitigation of ocean acidification. In reviewing the plan, the research council, which advises the government on science policy,
recommended that federal

research and action be focused on issues with human and economic

consequences. Pacific Northwest The panel cited the Pacific Northwest as an economic example, where high acidity
levels have hampered oyster hatcheries, worth about $270 million and 3,200 jobs to coastal
communities there. It is unclear if ocean acidification is the culprit, but it could be a harbinger of things to come, according to
the report. In 2011, U.S. commercial fishers caught 10 billion pounds of seafood valued at $5.3 billion, according to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The panel also suggested the plan should have a clearer mission, prioritized goals and
ways to measure progress. "This plan would cost a lot of money so there needs to be priorities and ways to prove impact," Somero
said. "The federal budget simply won't allow for everything that needs to be done." In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Ocean
Acidification Research and Monitoring Act, creating a federal program to deal with ocean acidification. Somero said the agencies

Ocean acidification is an "emerging global

problem," according to NOAA. Over the past 250 years, about one third of the carbon dioxide
produced by the burning of fossil fuels has ended up in oceans , according to a 2010 study.
Over that time, ocean acidity has increased about 30 percent, according to the National Research
Council. Ocean advocacy groups supported the panel's recommendations. "Ocean acidification is one of the
greatest threats to marine life and fisheries," said Matthew Huelsenbeck, a marine scientist at Oceana. "We are
encouraged that the Council has suggested communicating this issue to policy makers and the
public to increase awareness and hopefully lead to solutions ." Julia Roberson, a director at the Ocean
will take the recommendations and "tune up" the plan.

Conservancy, said the original plan was a good first step and she hopes government will use the council's suggestions. Amid
recommendations, the

panel also offered praise for the federal effort, saying the plan does "an
excellent job of covering the breadth of current understanding of ocean acidification and the
range of research that will be required to advance a broadly focused and effective National
Ocean Acidification Program."
Acidification is a key internal link to biodiversityaffects food chains, entire
ecosystems, and uniquely affects ptetropodal species
Johnson & White, 14 - Associate Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences @ UT Arlington (PhD in
Oceanography), environmental scientist @ NOAA (PhD in Enviro Science) (Ashanti and Natasha, Ocean Acidification: The Other
Climate Change Issue, American Scientist 102.1, (January/February 2014): 6063, lexis)//AE

Within Earths vast oceans exists a diverse population of beautiful creatures that depend on a
delicate balance of chemistry to remain viable. The tiniest animals are often the most important and
underestimated species in any environment; they also are among the most vulnerable . In the frigid waters of the
Southern Ocean, off the coast of Antarctica, one such creature is the pteropod, Limacina helicina antarctica. These
pea-sized marine snails, popularly known as sea butterflies because they appear to be using two wings when they swim,
serve as a major food source for commercial fishes such as pink salmon . Yet this
crucial resource is on the wane, as increasing levels of acid in the ocean threaten to dissolve its
aragonite shell and impair its normal development . More than 200 years ago, people developed a variety of
machines to accomplish tasks traditionally completed by hand. These great advances in technology, how- ever, have come at a steep
price: the industrial

and agricultural activities that drive our global economy have added
significantly to the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere . Most carbon dioxide remains in the air, but as
much as 25 percent is absorbed by the worlds oceans, according to the National Oceanic and Atmo- spheric
Administration (NOAA). Once in the water column, carbon dioxide ( CO2) reacts with water (H2O) to yield carbonic
acid, which releases hydrogen ions (H+), effectively increasing acidity . Since the start of the
Industrial Revolution, the pH level of the worlds oceans has dropped by 0.1 unit, which amounts to a 30-percent increase in acidity.
Es- timates based on business-as-usual scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that if

current trends persist, oceanic pH could drop by another 0.5 unit by the end of this century . That
is a huge change: a 150-percent increase in acidity. Such an alteration in the marine environment could have
devastating results both for ocean organisms and for the people who depend on them . Metals occur
naturally in many coastal and estuarine environments and are essential for the growth and survival of microorganisms that live by
means of photosynthesis. A balance of trace metals, such as iron, nickel, copper, zinc, and cadmium, is crucial. If trace-metal
concentrations fall too low, photosynthesis falters; if they rise too high, the excess of metal may prove toxic. For any given substance
(metal, nutrient, or even a contaminant), the amount that may be readily metabolized is known as bioavailable. The

potential
of ocean acidification to influence the bioavailability of metals comes down to basic chemistry .
Increasing influxes of CO2 cause a decrease in pH, which results in an increase in H+ and thus a decrease in hydroxide and carbonate ions in most surface waters. Normally, both hydroxide and carbonate form strong complexes with divalent and trivalent
metals, effectively sequestering those compounds from uptake by photosynthetic organisms; under acidified conditions, however,
hydroxide and carbonate remain as free metals that are bioavailable. Recent environmental models suggest that hydroxide and
carbonate ions will de- crease consistentlyas much as 82 and 77 percent, respectivelyby the end of the century. Such a decrease is
expected to change the speciation of a number of metal ions. Most organic macromolecules in seawater are negatively charged;
therefore, as a result of lowered pH, the surface of the organic macromolecules is less available to form complexes with metals. A

number of studies have predicted that ocean acidification might exacerbate the potential effects
of other anthropogenic stressors, thereby raising the bioavailability of environmental contaminants, particularly that of
waterborne metals. Acidification also modifies the interactions between marine organisms and
metals. Ambient trace-metal concentrations in the open ocean are low; marine organisms have evolved efficient mechanisms to
compensate for this, many of which are yet to be characterized. Not surprisingly, small increases in the concentration of normally
scarce metals often prove toxic. Individual metal species have different fates and cause varied impacts, depend- ing on their
function in the environment. For example, should

ocean acidification increase the available concentration of

free ionic copper, productivity in photosynthetic organisms may decrease. The resulting increase in free
ionic copper in the environment can cause physiological damage to some aquatic species. Copper af- fects the activation of olfactory
receptor neurons by competing with natural odor- ants for binding sites; such an effect has been shown to impair the sense of smell
in juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). These fish depend on olfaction to find food, avoid predators, and migrate.
According to one study, even low levels of copper produced a physiological stress response, characterized by hyperactivity, elevated
blood levels of the stress hormone cortisol, and an increase in the synthesis of metallothionein, a metal-detoxifying protein. On the
other hand, antagonistic (decreased) toxicities have been observed be- tween carbon dioxide and free ionic copper in a small coastal
crustacean, Amphi- ascoides atopus. Metal toxicity was likely antagonistic because of the presence of increasing H+ and the
competition for binding sites between CO2 and copper for H+. Alternatively, th e

observed antagonistic effect could be

due to the animals sup- pressed metabolism, which would reduce its rate of metal transport. If
acidified conditions should cause the concentration of dissolved iron to rise, this may stimu- late
photosynthesis, giving rise to a negative feedback mechanism . This mechanism has a potential positive effect:
Ocean acidification may actually make more iron bio- available, thanks to both the increased fractionation of dissolved iron and

The effects of ocean

acidification fall not just on certain species or particular regions, but throughout

elevated iron (Fe2+) concentrations in coastal systems. Effects on the Food Web

the food webs of the globe . According to the NOAA Ocean and Great Lakes Acidification Research Plan, changes
in ocean chemistry probably exert several indirect effects: shifting predator-prey interactions,
increasing the prevalence of invasive species, modifying the distribution of pathogens, or
altering the physical structure of ecosystems. Naturally, some organisms are expected to experience greater effects
than others. Among those most likely to take a hit are the calcifying organisms, such as corals,
clams, scallops, oysters, and other shellfish. Conversely, some photosynthetic zooxanthellae (the symbionts that live
on coral and provide its nutrition) or shallow nearshore seagrasses may be individually stimulated by an increase in carbon dioxide.
Their stimulation is expected to change the dynamics of the ecosystem by disrupting nutritional transfer from zooxanthellae to
corals and by interfering with the efficient use of carbon by thriving seagrasses, leading to overpopulation. Initial studies focused on
the negative effects of decreased calcium carbonate (CaCO3) saturation and on the inability of calcifying organisms to produce
protec- tive shells; more recent

studies show that acidification may also take a toll on species growth,
behavior, and survival. Noncalcareous species such as fish have shown impaired development
and decreased olfactory ability, as well as some evidence for changes in body composition and a
decrease in growth rate. Bacterioplankton may also be affected by acidification, exhibiting longer bloom times, increased
growth rate, and increases in nitrogen fixation. A secondary impact for humans and wildlife may arise from
the extended bloom of certain bacterioplankton, which can secrete substances that are toxic to
some humans and wildlife. When carbonate concentrations decrease in the oceans and bivalves become less able to
extract it effectively, they form thinner shells that make them more susceptible to predators. A computer simulation of
future ocean conditions showed that three ecologically and commercially important bivalve
speciesthe hard clam (Mercenaria mercenaria), the bay scallop (Argopecten irradians), and the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea
virginica)would suffer delayed metamorphosis and reduced growth in response to lower levels of
carbonate. The impaired ability of each species to form a calcified skeleton appeared likely to translate into prolonged predation
on the more vulnerable species and a decrease in the survival rate of their larvae. Within the marine environment, the sea
butterfly is an indicator species currently threatened by the pH changes taking place both in deep water
and near the ocean surface. Among the first ecosystems to be identified as vulnerable , of course, were
the coral reefs . In addition to the vulnerability of the coral species themselves, coralline algae, calcareous benthic
foraminifera, and other reef-building species may be affected. One review estimates that by the middle of the century,
corals and calcifying macroalgae will calcify 10 to 50 percent less than before the Industrial
Revolution. This steep decrease will take a toll not only on the corals functioning but also on other
ecosystem dynamics (such as the interaction between coral and its symbionts) and on the architectural complexity of the
reefs the corals construct. In one study, researchers postulate that the loss of architectural
complexity will decrease habitat diversity, which in turn will drive down
biodiversity . This decrease, together with the loss of coral reef species through bleaching, disease, and overexploitation,
threatens the persistence of coral reef and fish communities and of the sustenance fishers who
depend on them. If ocean acidification continues as expected, can evolution offer a key to the health of
marine organisms? Not all species can adapt rapidly to changing environ- ments; those that have this
capability, however, show that rapid evolution can alter responses to environmental change ,
ultimately affecting the likelihood that a population will persist. During the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum, a brief warming
spell that occurred about 55 million years ago, animals that evolved lighter skeletons were able to remain in areas where calcium
carbonate is relatively difficult to obtain. The capacity for organisms to undergo rapid evolution is likely dependent on their existing
genetic variation. For example, the purple sea urchin (Strongylocen- trotus purpuratus) that inhabits the Pacific Coast is known for
its ability to adapt quickly to acidified conditions. In its larval development and morphology, the purple sea urchin shows little
response to lower acidity; nevertheless, in the genome of this organism, researchers have observed substantial allelic change in a
number of functional classes of proteins involving hundreds of loci. For millions of years, the upwelling of waters rich in carbon
dioxide from the oceans depths have exposed these organisms to significant highs and lows of acidity; this is the probable explanation for their chemical tolerance. Coastal Regions The

major culprit behind ocean acidification has been

atmospheric carbon dioxide, although other factors have also contributed to the problem, especially in coastal regions.
Freshwater tributaries, pollutants from surface runoff, and soil erosion can acidify coastal waters at significantly higher rates than
carbon dioxide alone. In 2007, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographie Institution (WHOI) surveyed the waters of the eastern
United States and the Gulf of Mexico to measure levels of CO2 and other forms of oceanic carbon. When they compared these to the
waters total alkalinity, the study revealed that the East Coast was considerably more sensi- tive to acidified conditions than was the
Gulf of Mexico. Regular inputs from the Mississippi River, surface runoff, and other human im- pacts all affect the pH of the Gulf of

Mexico. These factors, coupled with the high ratio of alkalinity to dissolved inorganic carbon, help to explain why the Gulf of Mexico
has so far resisted acidification. As the WHOI researchers traveled north, they noted decreases in the ratio of alkalinity to dissolved
inorganic carbon, indicat- ing that those regions, specifically the coastline north of Georgia, would be more vulnerable if carbon
dioxide levels were to increase there. Subsistence

fisheries, too, are likely to be harmed. According to a Blue

Ribbon Panel Report from the state of Washington, ocean acidification is already demonstrating an impact on
oyster shell growth and reproduction. Planning and resource management hold some promise
for addressing the threat of acidification, but the unpredictable time scale and the variable nature
of the effects remain stubborn challenges. Safeguarding Ocean Chemistry Anthropogenic inputs of carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere are likely to continue causing environmental damage for the foreseeable futureand not only in the air we
breathe. The

oceans play a significant role in sequestering carbon from the atmo- sphere . Indeed,
they work so well as a carbon sink that until recently most scientists believed the carbon storage
capacity of the oceans to be nearly limitless, thereby serving as a negative feedback mechanism for atmospheric
carbon inputs. These initial hypotheses were wrong. We are now witnessing changes in ocean
chemistry that will affect inorganic and organic metal speciation and could even increase the
bioavailability of toxic metals. Clearly, we cannot continue to rely on the oceans to buffer the effects of our pollution
indefinitely. The effects of ocean acidification are far from uniform. Coastal regions are likely to be
disproportionately affected by compounding carbon input sources such as runoff from
agriculture, industry, and urban populations. Moreover, certain marine species are vulnerable to
acidification whereas others are relatively resilient. Using current legislationin particular, the U.S. Clean Water
Act and the Clean Air Actto enforce more stringent emissions standards may offset some of the harm caused by the rising acidity of

Confronting this threat will require broader public awareness, clear

interpretation of data, and reasoned predictions . Ultimately, more sustainable practices,
including reducing anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, must be
adopted globally to offset the harm already done and to ensure that marine ecosystems remain
viable.
the oceans.

Three scenarios:
a) Pteropodal die off independently causes extinction through a food chain
collapseadaption fails and our action is key
Taylor, 14 - research fellow at Stanford University (Larry, A tiny creature's big warning, June 26, 2014, Los Angeles Times,
Opinion Desk; Part A; Pg. 15, lexis)//AE

Pteropod, meaning "wing foot," refers to a group of animals that have neither wings nor feet as we
usually think of them. Instead, these seagoing snails get their name from wing-like extensions
they use to swim (the "foot" being the muscular portion of their body). They're unknown to most people, and recent news
articles discussing ocean acidification and pteropod shells probably didn't grab the public's
attention. But perhaps they should have. These tiny snails make up the base of many oceanic
food webs . Without them, everything in the food chain above them suffers, beginning with
salmon and similar fish, then progressing to the species that eat the salmon and so
on . Unfortunately, more than half of these snails collected in a recent survey showed extensive
damage: Their shells are literally dissolving, killing them off in astounding numbers . The cause
of this die-off, ultimately, is believed to be the rising levels of carbon dioxide . Leaving the chemistry
details aside, about a quarter of the CO2 added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels is
subsequently absorbed by the oceans, making the water more acidic. This change in ocean
chemistry reduces the availability of a particular calcium compound that animals such as clams,
oysters, mussels and our aforementioned sea snails need to build their shells. Without it, their shells are
weakened, developing holes and slowly disintegrating . This situation isn't entirely new for the planet; about
250 million years ago, the oceans endured similar changes in chemistry. Unfortunately, this past
acidification event coincided with the Permian-Triassic extinction. Far worse than the dinosaur-killing

the Permian extinction wiped out more than 90% of marine

species . The planet took millions of years to recover, the history of life was forever altered -and the whole thing may have been largely due to increased levels of CO2. That's the conclusion drawn
by many geologists and paleontologists, including Jonathan Payne and his colleagues at Stanford University .
Payne's research has helped to show that the chemical signatures of acidification are preserved in
rocks deposited during the Permian, and that the species most sensitive to acidification were the
ones most severely affected by this ancient biological crisis . The cause of the CO2 increase (volcanic eruptions
in that case) was obviously different, but the results seem all too familiar. There have been a host of grim stories
extinction of the Cretaceous period,

recently involving climate change. Reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate
Assessment confirm that climate

change is being felt on every continent and in every ocean, and the
effects are directly affecting our economy and health. Other reports demonstrate that global temperatures have
been higher than the 20th century average for 350 straight months, that Antarctic ice loss has doubled in rate and that rising sea
levels are unavoidable. Meanwhile, confused

pundits and media across the country pointed to the bitter

Northeastern winter as evidence against climate change , when in fact research indicates that both the cold in
the Northeast and the drought in California are ultimately linked to a change in the jet stream resulting from global warming.
Finally, other

researchers have already forecast a worldwide decline in shellfish harvests and

fishery production due to climate change and ocean acidification. The dissolving shells of
pteropods are one more indication that the Earth is changing , and it happens to be changing
in a way very similar to what caused the greatest extinction in history . What makes
climate change different from so many other threats we've faced is the time scale over which it
occurs; our fleeting life spans don't afford us a good perspective from which to assess the
situation. Although the warming of the planet over the last few decades may seem like a slow progression, it's a
mere instant in Earth's history, and the environmental changes we're causing far
outstrip the ability of life to adapt. It's something akin to the biosphere being diagnosed
with a cancer that turns terminal overnight . And like a cancer, the best we can do is prevent it;
once the disease progresses, there's no sure way to cure it. So let's not overlook or dismiss these
initial symptoms. We're growing ever closer to pushing our home over the edge, perhaps into
another mass extinction. If food webs collapse, all species will eventually feel the
trickle-up effects, humans included.
b) Reefsacidification decimates the rainforests of the ocean
Peel, 13 writer at Planet Earth Online (Alex, Scientists Call for Global Action on Coral Reefs, Planet Earth Online, August 13,
2013, lexis)//AE
A new paper, published in the journal Current Biology, says Caribbean

reef growth is already much slower than

it was 30 years ago. Its authors say that without serious action on climate change, the reefs may stop
growing and begin to break down within the next 2030 years . The balance between reef
growth and reef erosion is changing as we alter the environment , says Dr Emma Kennedy of the University
of Exeter, who led the study. This means that increasingly, some reefs are breaking down faster than they can
replace themselvesessentially theyre being worn away. As corals grow they produce limestone skeletons
which build up over time into vast reefs. They provide a natural breakwater and a complex threedimensional habitat, making an ideal home for a vast array of marine species . Healthy reefs
are the rainforests of the sea , says Kennedy. They provide habitat for over a quarter of all
marine species, including many colorful fish and corals. They also provide a range of vital benefits to
humanity, like food, jobs and protection from the sea. Globally, over half a billion people rely on
reef services to some extent. In the Caribbean alone, coral reefs are thought to be
worth $3.14.6 billion every year . But serious local and global pressures are causing corals
around the world to fall into ill health. Locally, theyre suffering from nutrient pollution, overfishing and an influx of

reef-smothering sediments from coastal developments. Pacific reefs have also fallen victim to plagues of coral-eating starfish, whose
larvae thrive in nitrogen washed into the sea from farms on land. Australian authorities estimate that 35 percent of the Great Barrier
Reef s coral cover has been lost to crown-of-thorns starfish in the past 25 years. Theyre warning that a new outbreak could be on
the way this year. Carbon

emissions pose a variety of dangers to corals. Rising sea levels threaten to

leave them stranded in darker waters, starving them of the light they need to survive . As the
oceans absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, they are also becoming slightly
more acidic, and less favorable to corals . Perhaps most seriously, warming ocean temperatures
are causing a breakdown in the vital give-and-take relationship between corals and the algae
that live in their tissues. This leads to coral bleaching, where whole coral colonies become lighter in color or completely
white, and many go on to die. Kennedy and her team used their own observations and information from
more than 300 academic papers to build computer simulations of Caribbean reef growth and
erosion. Taking over 116 different factors into account, they were able to predict the effect of various
conservation measures and climate scenarios on reef health . They found that local policies and
conservation measures, like protecting key species and preventing agricultural run-off, could
buy reefs an extra decade or so. But the study suggests that its going to take global action if
Caribbean reefs are to survive beyond the end of the century. Were all responsible for looking after our
planet to a certain extent, and as individuals we can help out by trying to reduce our carbon footprint in any way we can, says
Kennedy. But unless

governments can work together at an international level, then our research

suggests that the future looks grim for reefs. Under business-as-usual climate scenarios we found
Caribbean reefs eventually all degraded well before the end of the century. At the moment, were
still following this trajectory.
c) Acidification kills American lobster larvae, threatening an ecological lynchpin
Keppel et al, 12 Saint Francis Xavier University, Department of Biology (Elise A., Ricardo A. Scrosati is an author, and
Simon C. Courtenay works at Fisheries and Oceans Canada at the Canadian Rivers Institute, Ocean Acidification Decreases Growth
and Development in American Lobster (Homarus americanus) Larvae, Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, December
2012, 6166, http://journal.nafo.int/44/Keppel/5-keppel.html)//AE

Negative species responses to ocean acidification have been commonly found in marine
invertebrates. Here, it is shown that American lobster larvae exhibit reduced rates of growth and
development under the lower levels of seawater pH predicted for 2100 , compared with current levels.
Similar responses have been observed for other marine invertebrates, such as sea stars, mussels, and
corals (Fabry et al., 2008). Crustacean examples include the shrimp Pandalus borealis, which displayed increased development time
under acidified conditions (Bechmann et al., 2011), and the spider crab Hyas araneus, which displayed both decreased growth and
de- velopment rates (Walther et al., 2010), although pH levels were not always exactly the same across studies. American

lobster larvae may respond to decreased pH with reduced growth and development rates as a
result of reallocation of energy to other processes. Such a response has been seen in brittlestars,
which displayed muscle wastage (Amphiura filiformis, Wood et al., 2008) or a reduced ability to regenerate
lost limbs (Ophiura ophiura, Wood et al., 2010) while maintaining growth of calcified structures in
acidified seawater. This suggests that maintenance of calcified structures may occur at the cost
of somatic tissue loss or alterations to other biological processes , possibly implying indirect
effects on fitness and survival . In lobster larvae, additional energy may be allocated to powering
proton pumps for maintenance of internal acid-base balance or mineralization of the calcified
exoskeleton (Powrtner et al., 2004), reducing investment in growth and delaying the energy-expensive
molting process. Effects of decreased pH on calcification of the exoskeleton in American lobster larvae remain to be tested,
although it was recently reported that juveniles exhibit no change in calcification rates at pH levels predicted for 2100 (Ries et al.,
2009). While different life-history stages of some species may respond differently to acidification (Kurihara, 2008), our results on
lobster larvae fit well with results for juveniles, with reduc- tions in larval growth possibly resulting from maintenance of
calcification rates in an acidified environment. Research is required on the effects of ocean acidification on calcification in lobster
larvae and on growth in juveniles to test this possibility. The slower growth and development of American lobster larvae under
acidified conditions results in delays to reaching each molt, including the key metamorphosis from stage III (last larval stage) to
stage IV (postlarvae), which marks the transition from a pelagic to benthic life. A delay in this transition extends the time spent in
the water column, where there is little protection from predation (Factor, 1995), which might lead to an increase in predation-related

mortality. This, as well as an increase in mortality unrelated to predation between stages III and IV,

as found towards the

end of our experiment, might lead to reduced lobster recruitment to the seafloor and subsequent
reductions in populations. Our results differ from those for European lobster (H. gammarus) larvae, as their growth rate
remained unaffected by acidification between stages I and IV (Arnold et al., 2009). That study also found a decrease in carapace
mineral content (mag- nesium) for stage-III larvae in acidified seawater. These results suggest an emerg- ing pattern of differing
responses to ocean acidification within taxonomic groups (Ridgwell et al., 2009; Pistevos et al., 2011). Larvae of H. gammarus might
maintain growth rates at the cost of reduced carapace mineralization. Similarly, adult velvet swimming crab (Necora puber) was also
found to decrease exoskeletal mineraliza- tion in acidified seawater due to partial dissolution of its shell to compensate for extracellular acidosis (Spicer et al., 2007; Small et al., 2010). Decreased

calcification has also been seen in other

taxonomic groups in response to acidification (e.g., cor- als, Kleypas and Yates, 2009, and coccolithophores,
Beaufort et al., 2011), although tested conditions were not always identical among studies . Response
differences between closely related species emphasize the need for research on a range of or- ganisms from various geographic
ranges. In doing so, it

will be important to test for the same range of abiotic values to facilitate
comparisons. Overall, our results suggest that American lobster larvae may exhibit reduced
performance in response to ocean acidification at pH levels predicted for 2100 . It remains to be tested
whether reduced growth and development would also occur in juveniles and adults. Effects on fertility and hatching
also require investigation. Since some crustaceans (e.g., crabs) decrease thermal tolerance at lower
pH (Metzger et al., 2007; Walther et al., 2009), the interactive effects of acidification and rising temperature
should be investigated as well. It is also unknown whether lobsters have the potential for adaptation to predicted ocean
conditions to some extent. These key questions need investigation in order to best inform
industry, policy-makers, and conservation pro- grams on possible future
scenarios . From the perspective of larval ecology, our study suggests that future ocean
acidification may harm this important marine resource .
Marine hotspots are keythe impact is extinction
Mittermeier 11 (et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds
Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations.
He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally
discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book Biodiversity HotspotsF.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI
10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a
very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)//HA

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is irreversible. Human
activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995).
What are the consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity for future resource use. Scientists
have discovered a mere fraction of Earths species (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer
(Novotny et al. 2002). As

species vanish, so too does the health security of every human. Earths
species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogencures
waiting to be discovered. Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all commercial medicines
even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and
inspiration for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and other innovations (Benyus 2009). The
current loss of species has been compared to burning down the worlds libraries without knowing the content of 90% or more of
the books. With

loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of our crops and the genes we use to
improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration for manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and
function of the ecosystems that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above
and beyond material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency, and
freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural,
spiritual, and moral costs inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake, and wild plants and animals
are integral to the fabric of all the worlds cultures (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction

is made even more perilous

to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and
economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly
exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and

Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been
directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more
subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earths natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade
alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced

diversity may also

reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef
communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As
Earths climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).
In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about trhe biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also
depend upon these ecosystems the mostand, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control.
Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do
everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?

Extinction is a

global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically,
biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the
global conservation budgetperhaps 90%originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus
critical that those globally exible funds availablein the hundreds of millions annuallybe guided by systematic priorities if we are
to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss. The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation
is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where

should action toward reducing the loss of

biodiversity be implemented rst ? The eld of conservation planning addresses this question and revolves
around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the
risk to the species present in a regionif the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get
another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The
number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In
contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they
contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in
certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of
these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact. Myers seminal paper (Myers1988) was

Myers
described ten tropical forest hotspots on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of
habitat loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of hotspot status. A subsequent analysis added eight
the rst application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale.

additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional
blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a rst systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two
strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics ( > 0.5% of the
worlds total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts
culminated in an

extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientic publication (Myers et al.2000) that
introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-dened criteria and new data. A second systematic
update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of
species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redened several hotspots, such as
the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufcient data either did not
exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another regionthe East
Melanesian Islandswhich rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed
to meet the less than 30% of original vegetation remaining criterion to a genuine hotspot.

The plan solves:

Aquarius is the foundation of effective acidity monitoringlab tests fail, it has a
unique location, and its key to spur further action
Schrope, 8 - freelance science writer (Mark, Sleeping with the fishes, 27 November 2008, Nature Reports: Climate Change,
http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.127.html)//AE

Ocean acidification is the latest in a slew of threats to coral reefs . A team of scientists is now
getting right up close to Florida's reefs to better understand how their inhabitants may be
affected. Mark Schrope reports from the Aquarius Underwater Laboratory. Chris Martens, a marine biogeochemist from
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is seated at a table some 15 metres below the sea surface in the world's onlyfunctioning
underwater laboratory. Outside a large porthole next to him, a school of damselfish is visible in the blue distance grazing on
plankton. Martens and Niels Lindquist, his colleague at Chapel Hill and co-leader on

a ten-day mission to study the

impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs, are doing their own grazing on salads during a rest
from the day's 12 hours or so of scuba diving. The 13-metre Aquarius Undersea Laboratory is located
about four miles off the coast of Florida's Key Largo. It's about the size of a large camper trailer, and Martens

and Lindquist, along with a team of collaborators, are here to perform what may prove to be the first
successful measurements of the way that coral-reef organisms affect the acidity of their own
environment. Gathering such information has proven difficult; but, says Chris Langdon, who studies ocean acidification at
Florida's University of Miami, " It's the data we absolutely have to have ." Without understanding
how the acidity of waters surrounding a reef can change locally, researchers can't properly assess
the impacts of ocean acidification, a problem first identified about a decade ago that adds to a
litany of other threats to reefs and is expected to worsen in coming decades . " It's a very late
and nasty surprise for everybody that we're acidifying the oceans ," says Martens, " and
there hasn't been enough activity to address it ." The ocean acts as a major sink for CO2, soaking up
some 2 billion tons of the greenhouse gas each year. Though this lightens the carbon load in the atmosphere, once CO2 enters
the ocean it dissolves in seawater to form a weak acid, called carbonic acid. Because it reduces
availability of the calcium carbonate compound that corals and other animals use to build their
skeletons and shells, the build-up of carbonic acid could severely hamper the ability of corals
and other organisms to function. Since the 1700s, the ocean's acidity, measured in units of pH, has increased in line
with estimated atmospheric CO2levels1.Overall, pH has dropped by 0.1 units from an average, and slightly alkaline, value of 8.2.
Although this may sound small, pH is measured on a logarithmic scale, so this represents a 10 per cent increase in acidity. Some
research suggests reef building may have already slowed significantly as a result2. But the seawater around reefs has natural
fluctuations in acidity caused by the photosynthesis of algae and respiration of animals. So separating out human-induced changes
in ocean acidity from these background changes is a challenge akin to pulling global temperature increases from the noise of natural
variability. To illustrate why the research group has gone to the trouble to live in Aquarius for nearly four weeks on two separate
missions during September and October of this year, Martens dumps out a bowl of candy at the edge of the table. Turning it upside
down, he traps a single miniature chocolate bar inside to represent a reef organism confined in an aquarium during a typical
laboratory experiment. Martens explains that much

of what researchers currently understand about the

effects of increasing ocean acidity on reefs, and reef inhabitants' own pH impacts, is based on
experiments with confined organisms. But as is usually the case, reality is more complex than a
laboratory construct . So he and his colleagues have brought an arsenal of measuring devices ,
many of them prototypes under development, which enable never-before-possible in situ measurements of
reality. "We're moving from this to that," says Martens, pointing from the bowl to another piece of candy out in the open that
represents an animal in its natural environment. "We feel like we have to get out here and put our instruments
in the real world with all the real variables." One of the complexities of an actual reef
that can't be readily recreated in a laboratory is the interactions of different reef
players . During the day, photosynthesizing algae take up much of the CO2 pumped out by respiring
animals and microorganisms. At night, without this counterbalance, CO2 levels increase, so acidity does
as well. Of course, currents and other factors also influence these variations . "No one has a good handle
on these local numbers," says Langdon, who was not involved in the Aquarius research but has himself been frustrated in attempts
to quantify these effects. But preliminary

analysis of the new results suggests Martens and Lindquist's

team may finally have the right tools to begin studying local impacts effectively . Though the results are
only tentative, some general and unexpected trends are emerging. The researchers found an anticipated
rise in acidity at night and drop during the day owing to basic biology, which was nonetheless
important because it suggested that the equipment was working effectively. The greatest surprise,
though, was that they found similar, significant pH changes equivalent to about one-fifth the bulk
ocean change attributed to atmospheric CO2 both over the sand and over reefs. "We were surprised
that the impact was big everywhere," says Martens. One potential explanation is that there is enough activity by sand dwellers to
match the CO2 production of coral reefs. Another is that organisms such as sponges have a far reach with their CO2 outputs, a
notion that may be supported by the team's work. In

past research at Aquarius, the group has measured

phenomenal sponge water-pumping rates as high as 100,000 times their body volume in a day3. While
actively pumping, sponges and the microorganisms many of them house consume impressive
amounts of food, leading to equally impressive CO2 outputs . Another surprise find, from dye-release
experiments, was that a layer of water just a few centimetres thick above the sediment and the reef remains relatively unmixed with
the overlying water column for long periods. Carbon dioxide from sponges and other organisms could be diffusing quickly enough

throughout this thin layer to acidify it. If sponges and other organisms are a major influence on the acidity of reef waters, this could
be of particular concern because some research suggests that as the well-documented decline of coral cover on reefs around the
world progresses, sponges are increasing their prevalence. This could conceivably exacerbate acidification effects, given sponges'
high output of carbon dioxide. This lower water layer is also crucial to understanding the long-term impacts of ocean acidification.

If the lower layer is naturally more acidic, it could mean that some reef inhabitants, or at least
potential reef inhabitants such as settling coral larvae, may be facing more acidity than
predicted as the ocean pH drops. " We're just realizing that this is an important place to
make our measurements ," says Langdon. Martens and Lindquist hope that the ongoing
research at Aquarius will ultimately become a starting point for more widespread
studies . They are also working towards deploying long-term monitoring equipment as part of
the larger Aquarius automated observatory facility already established . "That's the dream, that we can
actually get into monitoring processes that are important on a longer timescale than people have typically been able to study them,"
says Martens. "We've

got to get started."

The info from Aquarius about both reefs and acidification is critical to guide future
policy decisionsnow is key
Heithaus 13Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences at FIU (Michael, Statement of Dr. Michael
Heithaus Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee Hearing June 13, 2013 Aquarius Reef Base and Partnerships in
Ocean Observations, http://government.fiu.edu/federal/dc-dispatches/current/Statement-of-Dr-Michael-Heithaus.html//cc)
National Needs for Ocean Science and Education Coastal

marine habitats such as coral reefs, seagrass beds

and mangroves support the highest marine biodiversity in the world. More than 500 million
people worldwide depend upon them for food (fisheries), storm protection, jobs and recreation.
Their resources and services are worth an estimated 375 billion dollars each year to the
global economy, yet they cover less than one percent of the Earth's surface. There is an
urgent need to develop scientifically based tools for conserving these habitats and where
feasible restoring the ecosystem services they deliver.to millions of people around the world .
While the Deepwater Horizon Incident highlighted the interconnectedness and susceptibility of marine ecosystems to human
activities, global

threats including climate change and ocean acidification have the potential to
cause even more wide-spread and profound damage . Coral reefs and other coastal
ecosystems that provide huge economic benefits are particularly susceptible to climate change
and other human caused stresses. The next decade will be pivotal in whether society can successfully chart
a path to a sustainable ocean future with thriving ecosystems and coastal human communities. Overcoming the threats
facing ocean ecosystems while ensuring that human needs for ocean resources are met requires a multidisciplinary
approach that involves coastal ocean observing systems to monitor ecosystems, in-ocean experiments to understand the
nature of threats and to develop solutions, development on new technologies for ocean observing and underwater
industrial activities, high-value public outreach to communicate the importance of ocean ecosystems and solutions to threats to their
health, and K-12 education programs and teacher development to inspire the next generation of STEM professionals and
marine scientists. How do we move forward to ensure that we, as a country, are able to accomplish this approach? The answer lies in
diverse partnerships, innovative technology, and human exploration and imagination. Aquarius Reef Base The Aquarius is the
only operating undersea laboratory, 43 feet long by 9 feet in diameter that houses six aquanauts on the ocean floor 60 feet below the
surface for 10-31 days at a time. The habitat, the worlds only operational marine habitat dedicated to science and education, is a
national treasure owned by NOAA. It has been sited in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary off Key Largo for 20 years and has

proven to be instrumental in the advancement of oceanic research, engaging Americas future leaders
through ocean-inspired learning, and serving as a catalyst for development of the next generation of marine and extra planetary
explorers and exploration technologies. Research

at Aquarius has directly guided the stewardship of not

just the Florida Keys National marine Sanctuary, but other coral reef ecosystems both in the US and
worldwide. An ocean observatory Aquarius provides an ideal platform for long-term monitoring of
coastal oceans and coral reefs. It will serve as a permanent station, providing real-time and longterm data on the marine environment, which will serve as an early-warning system for impacts to ocean ecosystems
both locally and globally. Because it can provide stable power , has a scalable IT infrastructure that facilitates innovative

sensor deployment, utilizes

the latest industry communication technology that offers a reliable means to

is the only manned ocean observing platform that allows for data ground-truthing
and sensor design and testing Aquarius will become a world-class ocean observation platform
that will facilitate monitoring and experimentation on, among other issues, the impacts of ocean
acidification on coral reefs, seagrass meadows and a diverse array of ocean organisms. The
position of Aquarius makes it particularly well-suited for studies of ocean acidification because it
sits between seagrass meadows, which remove CO2 that causes acidification, and the coral reefs
and open ocean that will be most impacted. The data generated by Aquarius will be critical for
guiding policy and conservation management to preserve these critical ecosystems and
potentially mitigate acidification worldwide. Finally, Aquarius Reef Base is, quite simply, the best
platform for observing the condition of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The
transmit data and video, and

National Marine Sanctuaries Act was intended to identify, designate, and comprehensively manage marine areas of national
significance. National marine sanctuaries are established for the public's long-term benefit, use, and enjoyment. As

home to
the largest continental coral reef ecosystem in the US, upon which the economy of south Florida is based, the
FKNMS was designated. Sanctuary status is designed, among other things, to: Enhance resource
protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation and ecosystem management that complements
existing regulatory authorities. Support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, the marine
resources of the Florida Keys to improve management decision-making Enhance public awareness, understanding, and
the wise use of the marine environment through public interpretive, educational, and recreational programs.
Aquarius is superbly enabled to facilitate all of these goals of the FKNMS with a special
emphasis on the unique interpretive and educational programs it allows . A manned presence on the
sea floor and the ability of citizens to share in that experience through traditional media outlets as well as live over the internet,
ignites the imaginations of future scientists and educators like nothing else!

1acasteroids
Asteroid impact is 100% certain and could occur at any timewe cant take the risk
and wait
Verschuur 1996 (Gerrit, Adjunct Prof of Physics at U of Memphis, Impact: the Threat of Comets and Asteroids, p. 158//cc)
In the past few years, the comet impact scenario has taken on a life of its own and the danger of asteroids has been added to the
comet count. In the context of heightened interest in the threat, reassuring

predictions have been offered about

the likelihood of a civilization-destroying impact in the years to come. Without exception, the scientists who have
recently offered odds have been careful in making any statement. They have acted in a "responsible" manner
and left us with a feeling that the threat is not worth worrying about. This is not to criticize their earnest efforts, only to point out
that estimates have been attempted for centuries. The way I look at the business of offering odds is that it

hardly matters
whether the chance of being wiped out next century is 1 in 10,000 , for example, or that the
likelihood of a civilization-destroying impact is once in a million years. That's like betting on a horse race. The only
thing that is certain is that a horse will win. What matters is the larger picture that begins to
force itself into our imagination; comet or asteroid impacts are inevitable . The next one may not
wipe us out in the coming century, or even in the century after that, but sooner or later it will happen. It could
happen next year . I think that what matters is how we react to this knowledge. That, in the long run, is what will make a
difference to our planet and its inhabitants. It is not the impact itself that may be immediately relevant; it is how we react to the idea
of an impact that may change the course of human history. I am afraid that we

will deal with this potentially mindexpanding discovery in the way we deal with most issues that relate to matters of great
consequence; we will ignore it until the crisis is upon us. The problem may be that the
consequences of a comet catastrophe are so horrendous that it is easiest to confront
it through denial. In the end, though, it may be this limitation of human nature that will
determine our fate.
The impact is actual extinction
McGuire 2002 (Bill, Professor of Geohazards at University College London and is one of Britain's leading volcanologists, A
Guide to the End of the World, p. 159-168//cc)
The Tunguska events pale into insignificance when compared to what happened off

the coast of Mexico's Yucatan

Peninsula 65 million years earlier. Here a 10-kilometre asteroid or cometits exact nature is uncertaincrashed into
the sea and changed our world forever. Within microseconds, an unimaginable explosion released
as much energy as billions of Hiroshima bombs detonated simultaneously, creating a titanic
fireball hotter than the Sun that vaporized the ocean and excavated a crater 180 kilometres across in the crust
beneath. Shock waves blasted upwards, tearing the atmosphere apart and expelling over a hundred trillion
tonnes of molten rock into space, later to fall across the globe . Almost immediately an area bigger
than Europe would have been flattened and scoured of virtually all life, while massive earthquakes rocked the
planet. The atmosphere would have howled and screamed as hypercanes five times more powerful than the
strongest hurricane ripped the landscape apart, joining forces with huge tsunamis to batter coastlines many
thousands of kilometres distant. Even worse was to follow. As the rock blasted into space began to rain down across the entire planet
so the heat generated by its re-entry into the atmosphere irradiated

the surface, roasting animals alive as

effectively as an oven grill, and starting great conflagrations that laid waste the world's forests and
grasslands and turned fully a quarter of all living material to ashes . Even once the atmosphere and oceans
had settled down, the crust had stopped shuddering, and the bombardment of debris from space had ceased, more was to come. In
the following weeks, smoke

and dust in the atmosphere blotted out the Sun and brought temperatures
plunging by as much as 15 degrees Celsius. In the growing gloom and bitter cold the surviving plant life
wilted and died while those herbivorous dinosaurs that remained slowly starved. global wildfires and acid rain from the
huge quantities of sulphur injected into the atmosphere from rocks at the site of the impact poured into the oceans,
wiping out three-quarters of all marine life. After years of freezing conditions the gloom following
the so-called Chicxulub impact would eventually have lifted, only to reveal a terrible Sun blazing through the

tatters of an ozone layer torn apart by the chemical action of nitrous oxides concocted in the impact
fireball: an ultraviolet spring hard on the heels of the cosmic winter that fried many of the
remaining species struggling precariously to hang on to life. So enormously was the natural balance of the Earth upset that
according to some it might have taken hundreds of thousands of years for the post-Chicxulub Earth to return to what passes for
normal. When it did the age of the great reptiles was finally over, leaving the field to the primitive mammalsour distant ancestors
and opening an evolutionary trail that culminated in the rise and rise of the human race. But could we go the same way1?To assess
the chances, let me look a little more closely at the destructive power of an impact event. At Tunguska, destruction of the forests
resulted partly from the great heat generated by the explosion, but mainly from the blast wave that literally pushed the trees over
and flattened them against the ground. The strength of this blast wave depends upon what is called the peak overpressure, that is the
difference between ambient pressure and the pressure of the blastwave. In order to cause severe destruction this needs to exceed 4.
pounds per square inch, an overpressure that results in wind speeds that arc over twice the force of those found in a typical
hurricane. Even though tiny compared with, say, the land area of London, the enormous overpressures generated by a 50-metre
object exploding low overhead would cause damage comparable with the detonation of a very large nuclear device, obliterating
almost everything within the city's orbital motorway. Increase the size of the impactor and things get very much worse. An asteroid
just 250 metres across would be sufficiently massive to penetrate the atmosphere; blasting a crater 5 kilometres across and
devastating an area of around 10,000 square kilometres that is about the size of the English county of Kent. Raise the size of the
asteroid again, to 650 metres, and the area of devastation increases to 1oo,ooo square kilometresabout the size of the US state of
South Carolina. Terrible as this all sounds, however, even this would be insufficient to affect the entire planet. In order to do this, an
impactor has to be at least 1 kilometre across, if it is one of the speedier comets, or 1.5 kilometres in diameter if it is one of the slower
asteroids. A

collision with one of these objects would generate a blast equivalent to 100.000 million
tonnes of TNT, which would obliterate an area 500 kilometres across say the size of Englandand kill perhaps tens of millions
of people, depending upon the location of the impact. The real problems for the rest of the world would start soon after as dust in the
atmosphere began to darken the skies and reduce the level of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface. By comparison with the huge
Chicxulub impact it is certain that this would result in a dramatic lowering of global temperatures but there is no consensus on just
how bad this would be. The chances are, however, that an impact of this size would result in appalling weather conditions and crop
failures at least as severe as those of the 'Year Without a Summer'; 'which followed the 1815 eruption of Indonesia's Tambora
volcano. As mentioned in the last chapter, with

even developed countries holding sufficient food to feed

their populations for only a month or so, large-scale crop failures across the planet would
undoubtedly have serious implications. Rationing, at the very least, is likely to be die result, with a worst case scenario
seeing widespread disruption of the social and economic fabric of developed nations. In the developing world,
where subsistence farming remains very much the norm, wide-spread failure of the harvests could be expected
to translate rapidly into famine on a biblical scale Some researchers forecast that as many as a quarter of the
world's population could succumb to a deteriorating climate following an impact in the 11.5 kilometre
size range. Anything bigger and photosynthesis stops completely. Once this happens the issue is
not how many people will die but whether the human race will survive. One estimate proposes that the
impact of an object just 4- kilometres across will inject sufficient quantities of dust and debris
into the atmosphere to reduce light levels below those required for photosynthesis . Because we still
don't know how many threatening objects there are out there nor whether they come in bursts, it is almost impossible to say when
the Earth will be struck by an asteroid or comet that will bring to an end the world as we know it. Impact events on the scale of the
Chicxulub dinosaur-killer only occur every several tens of millions of years, so in any single year the chances of such an impact arc
tiny. Any

optimism is, however, tempered by the fact that should the Shiva hypothesis be truethe next
swarm of Oort Cloud comets could even now be speeding towards the inner solar system . Failing
this, we may have only another thousand years to wait until the return of the dense part of the Taurid Complex and another

there is statistically no
reason why we cannot be hit next year by an undiscovered Earth-Crossing Asteroid or by
a long-period comet that has never before visited the inner solar system . Small impactors on the
asteroidal assault. Even if it turns out that there is no coherence in the timing of impact events,

Tunguska scale struck Brazil in 1931 and Greenland in 1097, and will continue to pound the Earth every few decades. Because their
destructive footprint is tiny compared to the surface area of the Earth, however, it would be very bad luck if one of these hit an urban
area, and most will fall in the sea. Although this might seem a good thing, a larger object striking the ocean would be very bad news
indeed. A 500-metre rock landing in the Pacific Basin, for example, would generate gigantic tsunamis that would obliterate just
about every coastal city in the hemisphere within 20 hours or so. The chances of this happening arc actually quite highabout 1 per
cent in the next 100 yearsand the death toll could well top half a billion. Estimates of the frequencies of impacts in the 1 kilometre
size bracket range from 100,000 to 333,000 years, but the youngest impact crater produced by an object of this size is almost a
million years old. Of course, there could have been several large impacts since, which cither occurred in the sea or have not yet been
located on land. Fair enough you might say, the threat is clearly out there, but is

there anything on the horizon?

Actually, there is. Some 13 asteroidsmostly quite smallcould feasibly collide with the Earth before
2100. Realistically, however, this is not very likely as the probabilities involved arc not much greater than 1 in io;ooo although

bear in mind that these arc pretty good odds. If

this was the probability of winning the lottery then my local

agent would be getting considerably more of my business. There is another enigmatic object out there, however.
Of the 40 or so Near Earth Asteroids spotted last year, one designated 2000SG344looked at first as if it might actually hit us.
The object is small, in the 100 metre size range, and its orbit is so similar to the earth that some have suggested it may be a booster
rocket that sped one of the Apollo spacecraft on its way to the Moon. Whether hunk of rock or lump of man-made metal, it was
originally estimated that 2000SG344 had a 1 in 500 chance of striking the Earth on 21 September 2030. Again, these may sound
very long odds, but they are actually only five times greater than those recently offered during summer 2001 for England beating
Germany 5-1 at football. We can all relax now anyway, as recent calculations have indicated that the object will not approach closer
to the Earth than around five million kilometres. A few years ago, scientists came up with an index to measure the impact threat,
known as the Torino Scale, and so far 2000SG2144 is the first object to register a value greater than zero. The potential impactor
originally scraped into category 1, events meriting careful monitoring. Let's hope that many years elapse before we encounter the
first category 10 eventdefined as 'a certain collision with global consequences'. Given sufficient warning we might be able to nudge
an asteroid out of the Earth's way but due to its size, high velocity, and sudden appearance, wc could do little about a new comet
heading in our direction.

High magnitude and aperiodic strikes shatter traditional considerations of

timeframe and mean we should treat NEA threats as immanent
Brownfield 4 (Roger, Gaishiled Project, A Million Miles a Day, Presentation at the Planetary Defense Conference:
Protecting Earth From Asteroids, 2-26, http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable= Paper&g ID=17092//cc)
Once upon a time there was a Big Bang... Cause/Effect - Cause/Effect -Cause/Effect and fifteen billion years later we have this chunk
of cosmos weighing in at a couple trillion tons, screaming around our solar system, somewhere, hair on fire at a million miles a day,
on course to the subjective center of the universe. Left

to its own fate -- on impact -- this Rock would release

the kinetic energy equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb for every man, woman and child on the
planet. Game Over ... No Joy... Restart Darwin's clock again. No happy ever after. There is simply no empirical
logic or rational argument that this could not be the next asteroid to strike Earth or that the next
impact event could not happen tomorrow . And as things stand we can only imagine a handful of dubious
undeveloped and untested possibilities to defend ourselves with. There is nothing we have actually prepared to do in response to this
event. From an empirical analysis of the dynamics and geometry of our solar system we have come to understand that the prospect
of an Earth/asteroid collision is a primal and ongoing process: a solar systemic status quo that is unlikely to change in the lifetime of
our species. And that the distribution of these impact events is completely aperiodic and random both their
occasion and magnitude. From abstracted averaged relative frequency estimates we can project that over the course of the next 500

Most
will be relatively small, 100 to 1,000 meters in diameter, millions of tons: only major city to
nation killers. 1,000 or so will be over 1,000 meters, billions of tons and large enough to do catastrophic and
potentially irrecoverable damage to the entire planet: call them global civilization killers. Of those, 10 will be over
million years in the life of Earth we will be struck by approximately 100,000 asteroids that will warrant our consideration.

10,000 meters, trillions of tons and on impact massive enough to bring our species to extinction. All these asteroids are out there,
orbiting the sun... now. Nothing more needs to happen for them to go on to eventually strike Earth. As individual and discrete
impact events they are all, already, events in progress. By any definition this is an existential threat. Fortunately, our current
technological potential has evolved to a point that if we choose to do so we can deflect all these impact events. Given a
correspondingly evolved political will, we can effectively manage this threat to the survival of our species. But since these events are
aperiodic and random we can not simply trust that any enlightened political consensus will someday develop spontaneously before
we are faced with responding to this reality. If

we would expect to deflect the next impact event a deliberate,

rational punctuated equilibrium of our sociopolitical will is required now . The averaged relative frequency analysis
described above or any derived random-chance statistical probabilistic assessment, in itself, would be strategically meaningless and
irrelevant (just how many extinction level events can we afford?). However, they can be indirectly constructive in illuminating the
existential and perpetual nature of the threat. Given that the most critically relevant strategic increment can be narrowly defined as
the next evergreen 100 years, it would follow that the strategic expression of the existent risk of asteroid impact in its most likely
rational postulate would be for one and only one large asteroid to be on course to strike Earth in the next 100 years... If we do
eventually choose to respond to this threat, clearly there is no way we can address the dynamics or geometry of the Solar System so
there is no systemic objective we can respond to here. We can not address 'The Threat of Asteroid Impact' as such. We can only
respond to this threat as these objects present themselves as discrete impending impactors: one Rock at a time. This leaves us the
only aspect of this threat we can respond to - a rationally manifest first-order and evergreen tactical definition of this threat Which
unfortunately, as a product of random-chance, includes the prospect for our extinction. Asteroid impact is a randomly occurring
existential condition. Therefore the next large asteroid impact event is inevitable and expectable, and that inevitable expectability
begins... now. The Probability is Low: As

a risk assessment: The probability for large asteroid impact in

the next century is low... is irrelevant . Say the daily random-chance probability for large asteroid impact is one in
a billion. And because in any given increment of time the chance that an impact will not happen is far greater than it will, the chance
that it will happen can be characterized as low. However, if we look out the window and see a large asteroid 10 seconds away from

impact the daily random-chance probability for large asteroid impact will still be one in a billion... and we must therefore still
characterize the chance of impact as low... When the characterization of the probability can be seen to be tested to be in
contradiction with the manifest empirical fact of the assessed event it then must also then be seen to be empirically false. Worse:
true only in the abstract and as such, misleading. If

we are going to respond to these events, when it counts

the most, this method of assessment will not be relevant. If information can be seen to be irrelevant ex post it
must also be seen to be irrelevant ex ante. This assessment is meaningless. Consider the current threat of the asteroid Apophis. With
its discovery we abandon the average relative frequency derived annual random-chance probability for a rational conditionalempiric probabilistic threat assessment derived from observing its speed, vector and position relative to Earth. The collective result
is expressed in probabilistic terms due only to our inability to meter these characteristics accurately enough to be precise to the point
of potential impact. As Apophis approaches this point the observations and resulting metrics become increasingly accurate and the
conditional-empiric probability will process to resolve into a certainty of either zero or one. Whereas the random-chance probability
is unaffected by whether Apophis strikes Earth or not. These two probabilistic perceptions are inherently incompatible and unique,
discrete and nonconstructive to each other. The only thing these two methodologies have in common is a nomenclature:
probability/likelihood/chance, which has unfortunately served only to obfuscate their semantic value making one seem rational and
relevant when it can never be so. However, merely because they are non rational does not make averaged relative frequency derived
random-chance probabilities worthless. They do have some psychological merit and enable some intuitive 'old lady' wisdom. When
we consider the occasion of some unpredictable event that may cause us harm and there is nothing tangible we can do to deflect or
forestall or stop it from happening, we still want to know just how much we should worry about it. We need to quantify chance not
only in in case we can prepare or safeguard or insure against potentially recoverable consequences after the fact, but to also meter
how much hope we should invest against the occasion of such events. Hope mitigates fear. And when there is nothing else we can do
about it only then is it wise to mitigate fear... The probability for large asteroid impact in the next century is low does serve that
purpose. It is a metric for hope. Fifty years ago, before we began to master space and tangibly responding this threat of asteroid
impact became a real course of action, hope was all we could do. Today we can do much more. Today we can hold our hope for when
the time comes to successfully deflect. And then, after we have done everything we can possibly do to deflect it, there will still be of
room for hope... and good luck. Until then, when

anyone says that the probability for large asteroid impact or

Extinction by NEO is low they are offering nothing more than a metric for hope -- not rational
information constructive to metering a response or making a decision to do so or not. Here, the probability is in
service to illusion... slight-of-mind... and is nothing more than comfort-food-for-thought. We still need such probabilistic comfortfood-for-thought for things like Rogue Black Holes and Gamma Bursts where we are still imaginably defenseless. But if we expect to
punctuate the political equilibrium and develop the capability to effectively respond to the existential threat of asteroid impact, we
must allow a rational and warranted fear of extinction by asteroid impact to drive a rational and warranted response to this threat
forward. Forward into the hands and minds of those who have the aptitude and training and experience in using fear to handle
fearful things. Fear focuses the mind... Fear reminds us that there are dire negative consequences if we fail. If we are going to
concern ourselves with mounting a response and deflecting these objects and no longer tolerate and suffer this threat, would it not
be far more relevant to know in which century the probability for large asteroid impact was high and far more effective to orient our
thinking from when it will not to when it will occur? But

this probabilistic perspective can not even pretend to approach

providing us with that kind of information. As such, it can never be strategically relevant: contribute to the conduct of
implementing a response. The same can be said when such abstract reasoning is used to forward the notion that the next asteroid to
strike Earth will likely be small... This leads us to little more than a hope based Planetary Defense. If

we are ever to respond

to this threat well then we must begin thinking about this threat better. Large Asteroid Impacts
Are Random Events. Expect the next one to occur at any time . Strategically speaking, this
means being at DefCon 3: lock-cocked and ready to rock, prepared to defend the planet and
mankind from the worst case scenario, 24/7/52... forever. Doing anything less by design, would be
like planning to bring a knife to a gunfight. If we expect our technological abilities to develop and continue to shape
our nascent and still politically tacit will to respond to this threat: if we are to build an effective Planetary Defense, we must abandon
the debilitating sophistry of The probability for large asteroid impact in the next century is low in favor of rational random
inevitable expectation... and its attendant fear.

Asteroid missions are inevitable, but the astronauts need effective training and
practice, which is only solved by continuous underwater experience
Mullen 14CNN news reporter (Jethro, NASA's bold plan: Landing people on asteroids updated 10:46 AM EDT, Tue
May 13, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/13/tech/nasa-asteroid-landing//cc)
But NASA

says it's working on plans to send astronauts into space to land on an

asteroid. The NASA mission isn't planned to take place until the 2020s. That isn't stopping astronauts from simulating an
asteroid landing in a 40-foot-deep swimming pool at a Space Center in Houston. "We're working on the
techniques and tools we might use someday to explore a small asteroid that was
captured from an orbit around the sun and brought back by a robotic spacecraft to orbit around

the moon," said Stan Love, one of the astronauts participating in the tests. Testing tools "When it's there, we can send
people there to take samples and take a look at it up close," he said. "That's our main task; we're
looking at tools we'd use for that, how we'd take those samples ." Love and his colleague Steve Bowen, who
between them have clocked up more than 62 hours on real spacewalks, took a dip in the swimming pool at NASA's Johnson Space

Being underwater
creates the lack of gravity that allows astronauts to practice walking in space . The
two men were working with engineers to try out tools that might be used, like a pneumatic hammer, as
well as the type of spacesuit that might be worn on the asteroid .
Center last week to practice climbing out of a mockup of the Orion spacecraft onto a fake asteroid.

Recent funding cuts prevent NASAs Extreme Environment Mission Operations, or

NEEMOthose operations are critical to effective asteroid deflection
Pasternack, 13 editor @ vice (Alex, The Last Sea Lab Just Barely Floats On, as NASA's Wild Asteroid Simulation Sinks,
February 15, 2013, vice, http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-last-sea-lab-survives-without-nasas-asteroid-simulation)//AE

Studying the oceans up close has arguably never been more important, what with all the effects
of ocean acidification, climate change's "evil twin." It can also be difficult. And it's not cheap, especially when it
involves sending humans underwater in pressurized conditions that allow them to live and work underwater for up to two weeks at a
time inside the world's last remaining undersea laboratory. It's so expensive that last

year the U.S. government cut its

funding for the Aquarius Reef Base, a 22-year-old sealab that sits in about sixty feet of water about four miles from the
shore of Key Largo, Florida, from $5 million to zero. Then in January, funding for the base was partially
restored, thanks to an agreement with Florida International University, which has enough funds to
maintain the base for 2013 but not enough money to return to doing science . That
brings me to another expense--on top of the ones incurred by climate change: getting hit by an asteroid .
Let me explain. For a decade, the Aquarius Reef Base, has been home to the NEEMO project , or NASAs
Extreme Environment Mission Operations, an effort to simulate zero gravity conditions
like those that would be found on an asteroid . In case an asteroid ever comes close
enough to Earth to warrant getting excited about, getting excited may well include sending
astronauts there to move it, just like in Armageddon. That's one possibility at least. Robots could be
useful here (astronauts don't like to hear that kind of talk) but a missile certainly would not be an option. This
could "form chunks that could also hit Earth," astronaut Mike Gernhardt said during my visit to the coastal command center last
summer. To

properly manipulate and understand an asteroidfor scientific or mining purposes

astronauts will want to "reach out and touch it with their hands." (see this video). Gernhardt has a clear
interest in keeping Aquarius and NEEMO going: besides flying on the Space Shuttle four times, he's been a commander and
principal investigator for two NEEMO missions. Before he became an astronaut, he was a deep sea diver who worked for years in the
oil and gas industry, developing underwater robotic systems and practicing saturation

dives, the kind that Aquarius makes

possible, allowing divers to work for extended periods of time underwater without the annoyance
of having to surface and depressurize. He's also piloted a submersible on the Pavilion Lake Expedition in western
Canada, which has helped NASA train for Mars and investigated unusual life forms called microbiolites. "NEEMO plans for 2013

a lack of
NASA funding was only part of Aquarius's problems. This year's federal budget included
no money for any projects at Aquarius . When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) consolidated programs in its ocean exploration program, it also eliminated the undersea research
program that included the reef base. That made it impossible for the University of North Carolina, Wilmington,
Aquarius's steward, to keep operating the lab. Despite pleas from scientists and the regret of NOAA's chief, last year it seemed
that the 22-year-old Aquarius might have to shut down. Then in January, the base received a
reprieve in the form of a new steward: Florida International University has offered to take over
operation. The facility costs about $1.5 million a year for basic operations, but the cost jumps to
about $3 million when funding research projects. This year, there's only enough money to
keep the lab alive, not enough to conduct any science . Ocean science is a known need,
but critics have wondered if NASA's asteroid simulation is really worth the cash . (Many have also
are still under review, so it is not confirmed either way at this time," Nicole Cloutier, a NASA spokesperson, told me. But

questioned the wisdom of flying to an asteroid to begin with, which was the goal President Obama set in 2011, before the U.S. sets its
sights on manned missions to Mars.) NEEMO is fun and it's spectacular, but can't NASA just drop an Airstream into its Neutral
Buoyancy Tank in Houston, the giant swimming pool where astronauts already train for missions? Proponents

say that
wouldn't be the same, insisting that simulations like NEEMO are important because they're
realistic and challenging. "Being in a potentially hazardous environment - with complicated
operational issues - causes you to do things - consciously and subconsciously in a way that you
would not be inclined do in a simple tank in the building next to your office ," writes Keith Cowing of
NASA Watch. "You can't just float out the hatch and return to the surface . I speak from experience having
participated in 3 expeditions to Devon Island (two were for a month) and a month at Everest Base Camp. 'Being there' is part of the
point to the planetary analogs." As Jim Fourqurean, the professor at Florida International University now overseeing Aquarius's
future, wrote in an email, "the

world outside the ship is hostile to human life and the conditions require
special equipment and protection to conduct difficult tasks . This is why NASA has found
Aquarius so useful, and we expect that other agencies training astronauts will also
see the value in Aquarius as a training facility ." But oceanic science, not practicing for asteroids,
is still the main focus at Aquarius, and the central argument for the lab's existence . Aquarius's 400
square feet of living and research space for scientists and divers offers not only the means for the first-hand study of coral reefs and
the ocean, but allows for the testing of new undersea technology, diver training, and spectacular public outreach about oceanic
science, especially as climate change presents new challenges like the growing acidification that is destroying marine wildlife. "The

base, of course, provides the unique opportunity for marine scientists and engineers to be
physically present, safely, for extended time in the environment to monitor experiments, tend
instruments, and make observations," says Fourquerean. "We are looking to make Aquarius and the
reef around her into the premier laboratory for the study of the effects of climate change and
ocean acidification on coral reefs." Even with money from NOAA and potentially more state
funding (something more realistic than a North Carolina university funding a project in Florida), Fourqurean is looking
at a serious funding challenge, one that will require some creative approaches . "The real hurdles
for us to clear are the development of a customer base and funding stream that will provide
some stability to the program," he writes. "Aquarius is unique, so there is not a large pool of people
out there with the training and expertise necessary to be part of the staff ," a group that can take a year to
train. "We have lost a lot of good people who had to leave Aquarius for better paying jobs in the private sector because of the yearly
uncertainties in federal funding for the program." Asteroid

simulation is out for now, which will be a blow to

to mention to Earth's chances of understanding and surviving an asteroid .
Bringing more celebrities to the base couldn't hurt the causeSylvia Earle and Fabien Cousteau are among
the luminaries who've visited recentlyand paid tourism could be a possibility too. For now, though, scientists at FIU,
NASA, and elsewhere are simply hoping that Aquarius will be ready to return to
business as a lab next year, because there's no other place quite like it.
Aquarius's public profile, not

Aquarius is a prerequisite to effective missions in spaceaccurate gravitational

simulations and extreme environmental conditions make it the only place where
NEEMO can occur
Chappell et al 13PhD in human performance in simulated reduced gravity from the
University of Colorado, Technical Director and Deputy Mission Manager on NEEMO 15 (Steve
Chappell attended the University of Michigan and earned a bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. Steve also earned
masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Colorado, studying human performance in simulated reduced gravity. His
research has been focused on optimizing human performance in the next-generation human space exploration systems, including
leading and taking part in studies in different exploration analog environments as a member of the Exploration Analogs and Mission
Development (EAMD) team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Andrew Abercromby is a biomedical engineer and deputy
project manager for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) project, which is designing and testing a new type of
human space exploration vehicle. He is also the deputy project lead for the EAMD team. Andrew has also previously worked in
NASA's Neurosciences Laboratory, Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility, and Flight Mechanics Laboratory and has
participated in NASA analog studies in the arctic, the desert, and beneath the ocean. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Michael
Gernhardt is a NASA astronaut who has been a mission specialist on four Space Shuttle missions. He has a bachelor's degree in
physics from Vanderbilt University as well as master's and doctorate degrees in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.
He is also the principle investigator for the NEEMO project, project manager of the MMSEV project, manager of the NASA JSC

Environmental Physiology Laboratory, principle investigator of the Pre-breathe Reduction Program, and project lead for the EAMD
team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 1, the first NEEMO mission, and was commander of NEEMO 8. NEEMO 15: Evaluation of
human exploration systems for near-Earth asteroids, Acta Astronautica: Volume 89, AugustSeptember 2013, Pages 166178//cc)
1. Introduction 1.1. Aquarius habitat Aquarius

is the only operational undersea research habitat in the

world ( Fig. 1). It is operated for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association by the Florida International
University. It is highly sophisticated in its logistical infrastructure, and has not required major
modifications to support unique NASA needs. Aquarius was built in the mid-1980s, and was previously located in
Saint Croix (U.S. Virgin Islands) before it was moved to the reef line 19.3 km (12 miles) off Key Largo, Florida, in 1990. In these 2
locations, Aquarius

has supported dozens of missions to study the undersea realm for several
hundred marine research scientists from around the world. Aquarius is similar in size to the U.S.
Laboratory module on the International Space Station, or ISS (15 m long 4.5 m in diameter). It is firmly secured to a
sand patch surrounded by large spur-and-groove coral reefs on 3 sides. It sits in water 18 m (60 ft) deep, but the entrance level is
actually closer to 15 m (50 ft), which corresponds to an internal pressure of 253 kPa (2.5 atm). At this depth, aquanauts

living and working in the habitat become exposed to excessive levels of nitrogen within the first few
hours and must commit to staying in the habitat and undergoing a decompression schedule before returning to the
surface. This type of diving is called saturation diving, referring to the complete saturation of the
body tissues by the breathing gas mixture. A diver in this condition will quickly experience
decompression sickness if he or she returns to the surface without going through the requisite
decompression schedule, and would most likely experience injury and even death if not treated. The danger is
real and the environment is truly extreme , which is one of the key reasons it makes
such a good analog to living in space. Aquanauts participating in these missions must utilize their training,
skills, knowledge, and teamwork to ensure their safety and mission success. Permanently anchored above Aquarius is a 10-m (32.8
ft) Life Support Buoy, or LSB. On board the LSB are redundant generators and compressors which provide electrical power and
fresh air through an umbilical line to the habitat. Separate umbilicals provide communications connectivity. From the LSB the signal
is relayed by microwave to the NURC headquarters in Key Largo. This allows Aquarius to have real-time voice communication (radio
and telephone) and Internet connectivity. It also allows the watch desk at NURC to monitor video and systems telemetry in real
time, which they do continuously during a mission. The

Aquarius facility provides an isolated and confined

environment from which realistic EVAs can be performed . With the addition of vehicle and equipment
mockups near the habitat, EVAs can be performed to assess operations concepts in a way that will inform
suit, vehicle, and tool requirements to maximize crew performance . Because crew members on EVA can
be out for extended periods and their environment can be configured to simulate near-zero or partial
gravity, the Aquarius site is the most effective way to accurately test these
operations concepts. 1.2. NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) project The
combination of isolation in a confined and extreme environment along with the
ability to simulate weightlessness or reduced gravity during EVA excursions makes
Aquarius an excellent analog for spaceflight . NASA's NEEMO (NASA Extreme
Environment Mission Operations) project began in 2001 with the primary goal of astronaut
training. Over time, the project has evolved to include many science and engineering studies
during the missions. Previous NEEMO missions have included evaluations of the effects of
communications time delay on mission operations, demonstration of telemedicine techniques, and
testing of methods for measuring behavioral health, team cohesion, fatigue, and other physiological and
psychological adaptations that occur during NEEMO missions. Other objectives take advantage of
buoyancy while crew members are diving on scuba or umbilical-supplied diving helmets outside
the Aquarius habitat; by attaching the appropriate amount of weight or flotation to EVA crew members, the effects of
different gravity environments and spacesuits of different weights can be simulated . In some cases,
custom-built backpacks have been used to simulate the backpacks on EVA suits except that they are reconfigurable so that the center
of gravity (CG) can be moved to simulate the CG of different spacesuit designs [1]. Crew

members have then performed

predefined tasks in the simulated partial-gravity environment to provide valuable
data on, for example, the design of tasks, EVA interfaces, and hardware, and the effect of

spacesuit weight and CG on EVA performance ( Fig. 2). 1.3. Near-Earth asteroids Near-Earth asteroids
(NEAs) have been identified as potential destinations for future human missions and present
opportunities to develop the systems, technologies, and capabilities that NASA will require to
explore beyond the Earthmoon system and on to Mars. NEAs have orbits that approach or intersect the
Earth's orbit around the sun and have perihelion distances of 1.3 astronomical units or less. An astronomical unit is the
mean Earthsun distance and is about 150 million km (93.2 million miles). Thus NEAs are objects that by definition come within 45
million km (27.9 million miles) of Earth's orbit. Because

of their close proximity to Earth, many NEAs are more

easily accessible than the moon in terms of the required propulsive change in velocity (delta v). Some of these objects are
in orbits similar to Earth's, and given their small size, do not have an appreciable gravity well compared to those of the moon and
Mars. Thus, only a relatively small v is required to rendezvous with, and to depart from, a typical NEA. NEAs can range in size from
a few meters in diameter to more than 30 km (18.6 miles) across, as in the case of asteroid (433) Eros. In general, NEAs also seem to
have a range of compositions and structures, according to evidence obtained from ground-based observations, robotic spacecraft
missions, and laboratory analyses of meteorites. NEAs also represent the oldest rocks in the solar system and contain

the
clues to the development and formation of all the planets, the Earth, and the moon . Given that
the orbits of some NEAs actually intersect and cross Earth's orbit, they have the potential to
strike our planet . The cratering record from both the Earth and the moon indicates that NEAs have hit the Earth and its
moon for billions of years. They still pose a distinct hazard to life on Earth . It is now commonly recognized
that the impact of a 10-km (6.2 miles) object into the Yucatan peninsula 65 million years ago was
the cause of the massive K/T (i.e., dinosaur) extinction event. Current estimates suggest that approximately
20,500 +/ 3000 NEAs equal to or greater than 100 m in diameter exist within our Solar System ; of
this number, about 1/5th are thought to be potentially hazardous [2], [3] and [4]. Human exploration of
NEAs will result in a better understanding of our solar system, but it also has the potential for more practical
applications. This includes extraction and utilization of resources (for example, water, precious
metals, and volatiles) that could be used for future space exploration . Another application
includes planetary defense or NEA impact mitigation, through determining NEA features such
as material properties, internal structures, and macro-porosities. These scientific and hazardmitigation benefits, along with the programmatic and operational benefits of a human venture
beyond the Earthmoon system, make a crewed mission to an NEA a compelling prospect. 1.4.
Exploration Analogs and Mission Development (EAMD): Integrating across analogs The EAMD project was initiated by
the NASA Directorate Integration Office in March 2009, and chartered to support Exploration analogs by
ensuring a rigorous approach and the use of consistent operational products, tools, methods, and metrics
across all NASA analog activities to enable iterative development, testing, analysis, and validation of evolving exploration operations
concepts. Mission

Development by providing detailed EVA and surface operations analysis and

developing assembly, maintenance and science tasks for selected exploration architectures. The 2 elements of
EAMD's charter are closely related and allow detailed, informed, iterative development and refinement
of exploration architectures, operations concepts, and technology development. Investigators conducting
NASA-funded analog field test activities work with the EAMD team using the exploration
analogs process to ensure that the required level of rigor and consistency is applied before,
during, and after analog field tests so that data collected is usable and relevant to NASA 's
exploration architecture development and technology development priorities. The exploration analogs process requires the
development, review, and approval of detailed experimental protocols several months before testing. The process also requires that
post-test analysis, results, and conclusions be presented back to the stakeholder community to facilitate inclusion in the decision
making for architectures, ops concepts, and designs. The mission

development aspect of EAMD's work consists of

detailed analysis of EVA and surface or destination operations concepts within exploration
scenarios being considered by NASA's architecture development teams . Mission development analyses
inform the design and objectives of the analog tests, whereas the results of the testswhich are planned, conducted and documented
using the exploration analogs processinform the subsequent mission development work. Where possible, timelines and
operational approaches are evaluated in one or more analog test environments so that those approaches are better understood with
respect to potential hardware, software, consumables, and/or operational implications. Examples of outputs from the mission
development process, specific to identified exploration architectures and design reference missions, include Crew time and
consumables models Identification of EVA implications and considerations Detailed EVA and destination operations concept
documents Recommendations for destination operations support systems (hardware and software) The

level of detail

generated through the mission development process is a prerequisite to developing detailed test
protocols and selecting appropriate test sites and hardware for evaluating specific objectives .
Because EAMD is integrating across analog environments, the limitations of any one analog environment are often mitigated by
conducting complementary analog testing in environments with different strengths and limitations (Fig. 3). The process by which
theoretical timelines produced in the mission development phase are systematically evaluated, revised, and refined across analog
environments is shown in Fig. 4. The

feasibility and productivity of specific aspects of NEA surface

exploration techniques and combinations of exploration work systems were evaluated in the
reduced-gravity simulation of NEEMO 15 using EVA crew members (crew using SCUBA or SuperLite dive helmets,
weighed out to microgravity) and MMSEV analog vehicles (Deepworker submersibles) (Fig. 3). The effects of communications delay
on performing real exploration science with an MMSEV analog vehicle in a reduced-gravity simulation were assessed at the 2011
Pavilion Lake Research Project (PLRP) field test. The 2011 Desert Research and Technology Studies (RATS) field test used higher
fidelity hardware, communications, and mission operations in a 1-g environment to evaluate the productivity of different
combinations of exploration work systems for simulated NEA exploration while operating under a communications delay. Because
of the 1-g environment at Desert RATS, the methods of EVA translation used there are not representative of NEA surface operations;
however, combining the relevant productivity, timeline, and task acceptability data from NEEMO, PLRP, and Desert RATS leads to a
more holistic understanding of NEA operations than consideration of any one data set by itself. Also under development is a
software environment in which different approaches to NEA exploration using MMSEVs and EVA astronauts may be simulated and
compared. The simulator is already being used to calculate the v required to operate an MMSEV in different ways and to
understand the interaction between MMSEV operations, v requirements, and NEA size and spin rate. A mathematical model of
MMSEVNEA orbital mechanics and propellant usage is also being used to parametrically evaluate different operations concepts as
a function of vehicle mass, NEA characteristics, and several other operational and architectural variables. Combining

data
from mathematical models, software simulations, and analog field tests will make it possible to
make quantitative estimates of productivity, propellant usage, mass requirements, and crew
time for different combinations of exploration systems and different concepts of operations for
NEA exploration.
Actual astronauts agree that the plan is key
Anderson 6/26/14U.S. Astronaut (Ret.); ISS and Space Shuttle spacewalker (Clayton, The
Meeting of Inner and Outer Space Posted: 06/26/2014 10:51 am http://www.huffingtonpost.com/clayton-anderson/the-meeting-ofinner-and-outer-space_b_5529638.html//cc)
It's always good to "go home." I had an opportunity to do exactly that last week thanks to the gracious hospitality of Fabien
Cousteau, his Mission 31 team members and some dear old friends near Key Largo, Florida. I

returned to the Aquarius

underwater habitat, located about 4.5 kilometers southeast of Key Largo, solidly planted on the ocean floor some
20 meters (65 feet) below the surface. In an "on this day in history"-type timeline, I returned to my home of two weeks
during June 2003 exactly 11 years later. Only this time I brought something I didn't have back in 2003: the experience
of having spent actual time living and working in outer space . As I sailed effortlessly around the habitat with
Fabien that beautiful morning, taking in the impactful undersea beauty where I formerly lived and worked, I was once again
an aquanaut, and now an authentic astronaut as well! Returning to this wonderful place, I found that its
remarkable suitability as a perfect analogy to spaceflight was now clearly evident.
NASA had indeed hit a home run when former Mission Controller and NASA engineer Bill Todd
birthed the brainchild that would become NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations
(NEEMO). From timelines to experiments to technology development and even spacewalks
(SCUBA excursions in inner space), the parallels are remarkable, making NEEMO one of the best preoperational training grounds for long-duration astronauts. It is indeed excellent news that NASA has secured
funding for two more NEEMO missions, 18 and 19, beginning in July 2014. During my inner-habitat discussions with Fabien, the
grandson of world-renowned undersea explorer Jacques Cousteau, we

talked about this synergism between inner

and outer space and reflected on its potential for increased commercial applications , as is happening
now in the world of spaceflight. Why not, we mused, have a larger, more commercially viable underwater
scientific outpost, where the Sarah Brightmans and Lady Gagas of the world could swim and live amongst the Earth-based
alien life forms in our oceans (singing, however, would be much more difficult, as the 2.5-times increase from atmospheric pressure
makes whistling an impossibility!) in

the same manner that they one day plan to do in low-Earth orbit? As
our space program apparently sits mired in the throes of reduced budgets , with no capability to launch
American astronauts from U.S. soil, and arguable visions for the future, I applaud Fabien Cousteau, Mission 31 and the miracle
workers of the

Aquarius habitat and Reef Base for their efforts to get word out about "inner space." With their -- and NASA's

-- continued push to reach the world's young people via social media and actually show them what we do, the initiative of people like
Fabien Cousteau will

help "inner and outer space" become the exciting pursuit of students across the
planet, planting the seeds to spark increased interest in science, technology, engineering , arts and
math (STEAM). Perhaps then, maybe even with the help of these media-enhanced celebrities, we may once again experience the
"Age of Aquarius."

asteroids advimpacts

asteroid impacts first

Our evidence is comparativewar, environmental destruction, terrorism, and
economic collapse are all dwarfed by an asteroid impact
Steel 2002 - Joule Physics Laboratory, University of Salford (October 24, Duncan, Neo Impact Hazard: the Cancer Metaphor
NASA Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids,
http://www.noao.edu/meetings/mitigation/media/arlington.extended.pdf pg. 93)
The Cancer Metaphor: Why facing up to hazardous asteroids and comets is like dealing with cancer: (1) Early

identification
is vital Most cancers need to be picked up very early in their development if they are to be treatable. So it is with NEOs. We
have no time to lose in identifying any potential Earth impactor: there is no phony war with
these objects. (2) Cancer screening (and NEO surveillance) is cheap The cost of screening is smaller
than the cost of treatment, and much less than the cost of doing nothing. (3) Everyone can be involved in
some way Self-inspection (e.g. for breast, skin or testicular cancer) is simple; but a corollary is that detailed investigations (e.g. for
brain tumours) are expensive. Similarly amateur astronomers can provide vital help, although in the end the professionals will need
to tackle the job. (4) Identification of a real problem is unlikely Individuals are unlikely to contract specific cancers for which
screening is done, but we must aim to check everyone periodically. In the same way we

need to seek out all NEOs, and

keep tabs on them. (5) False alarms are common Any indicator of a potential problem necessitates careful monitoring, and
causes considerable worry. But one should be pleased when the tumour proves benign. Precisely the same applies to NEOs: asteroids
and comets discovered and initially flagged to be potential impactors but later shown to be sure to miss our planet represent
victories on our part. (6) Tackling any confirmed cancer (NEO impact) is certain to be unpleasant Noone suggests that chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgical intervention are fun, but they are necessary, as would be the steps
employed to divert an NEO, such as the nuclear option. Nor would they be cheap: but the

cost would be of no

consequence, as with a serious cancer. (7) Just because we don't yet know the cure for cancer does not mean that we should give
up looking and trying. Where there is life, there is hope. If we should find an NEO destined by the
clockwork of the heavens to impact the Earth in the near future (within the next few decades to a century, say),
and using our advanced science and technology we manage to divert it and so save ourselves,
this will rank as perhaps the greatest achievement of modern-day civilisation. (8) Just because there are
more significant problems facing the world does not mean that we should ignore this one. Having a
bad cold or influenza does not mean that you should neglect to have the lump in your breast or the suspicious, dark skin blemish on
your neck checked out. Another viewpoint would be that if

there is a substantial NEO due to strike our

planetary home soon, then we face no greater problem: not terrestrial disasters,
not terrorism, not wars, not disease, not global warming, not unemployment nor
economic downturns. The most likely result of a proper study of the impact hazard is that it will go away, because we
will find that no impact is due within the foreseeable future. But the converse is also true: what we now see as a slim
chance (low probability of a large impact) may turn into a virtual certainty, which would then
supplant our Earthly concerns. (9) Just because we don't yet know a cure for the common cold does not mean that we
cannot find the solution for this disease. Some of the greatest dangers we face on a daily basis have quite simple solutions, like
imposing speed limits to cut down road fatalities. Conceptually, planetary

defense against NEO impact is a far

simpler problem than, say, trying to stop major earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, or halting a
hurricane in its path.

turns environment
Only asteroid strikes cause immediate compound environmental crisesnothing
else comes close
Chapman 04 (Senior Scientist at the Southwest Research Institute, Dept. of Space Studies, the Hazard of near-Earth
asteroid impacts on earth, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 222)
I have argued [59] that impacts

must be exceptionally more lethal globally than any other proposed

terrestrial causes for mass extinctions because of two unique features: (a) their environmental effects
happen essentially instantaneously (on timescales of hours to months, during which species have little time to evolve or
migrate to protective locations) and (b) there are compound environmental consequences (e. g., broiler-like
skies as ejecta re-enter the atmosphere, global firestorm, ozone layer destroyed, earthquakes and tsunami, months of ensuing
impact winter, centuries of global warming, poisoning of the oceans). Not

only the rapidity of changes, but also

the cumulative and synergistic consequences of the compound effects, make asteroid impact
overwhelmingly more difficult for species to survive than alternative crises.
Volcanism, sea regressions, and even sudden effects of hypothesized collapses of continental
shelves or polar ice caps are far less abrupt than the immediate (within a couple of hours)
worldwide consequences of impact; lifeforms have much better opportunities in longer-duration scenarios to hide,
migrate, or evolve. The alternatives also lack the diverse, compounding negative global effects. Only the artificial horror of global
nuclear war or the consequences of a very remote possibility of a stellar explosion near the Sun could compete with impacts for
immediate, species-threatening changes to Earth's ecosystem. Therefore,

since the NEA impacts inevitably

happened, it is plausible that theyand chiefly they alonecaused the mass extinctions in
Earth's history (as hypothesized by Raup [60]), even though proof is lacking for specific
extinctions. What other process could possibly be so effective? And even if one or more
extinctions do have other causes, the largest asteroid/comet impacts during the Phanerozoic
cannot avoid having left traces in the fossil record.

small asteroid impact

Small asteroid strike alone would kill millions
Worden 2002 - United States Space Command, Peterson Air Force Base (October 24, S.P., Military Perspectives on the
Near-Earth Object (Neo) Threat. NASA Workshop on Scientific Requirements for Mitigation of Hazardous Comets and Asteroids,
http://www.noao.edu/meetings/mitigation/media/arlington.extended.pdf pg. 101)
Most people know of the Tunguska NEO strike in Siberia in 1908. An

object probably less than 100 meters in

diameter struck Siberia, releasing equivalent energy of up to 10 megaton s. Many experts believe there
were two other smaller events later in the century one in Central Asia in the 1940s and one in the Amazon in the
1930s. In 1996, our satellite sensors detected a burst over Greenland of approximately 100 kiloton
yield. Had any of these struck over a populated area, thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands might have perished. Experts
now tell us that an even worse catastrophe than a land impact of a Tunguskasize event would be an ocean impact near a
heavily populated shore. The resulting tidal wave could inundate shorelines for hundreds of miles and
potentially kill millions. There are hundreds of thousands of objects the size of the
Tunguska NEO that come near the earth. We know the orbits of just a few.
Even small strikes have a massive impacteconomic and climatic effects are on
par with nuclear war
Nemchinov 8 (Ivan, Valery Shuvalov, and Vladimir Svetsov, Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Main Factors of Hazards Due to Comets and Asteroids, Catastrophic Events Caused by Cosmic Objects//cc)
A large number of special and review papers devoted to the problems of hazards due to comets and asteroids have been published

It is now
generally accepted that impacts of cosmic bodies of about 1 km and larger pose a serious danger to
modern civilization and even to the survival of humanity . Nevertheless, smaller bodies can be
hazardous also. Asteroids and comets from 30-50 m to 0.5-1 km, small cosmic bodies, collide with the Earth much more
frequently than large impactors. The NEO programs now search for objects 1-2 to 0.1-0.2 km in size, but it is difficult to find
small bodies in space because their cross-sections are very small and they are faint at large
distances from the Earth. Therefore, catalogues of these bodies will be 90% completed not earlier than 15-20 years from
now, even if the necessary large telescopes are constructed. If some of the NEOs are on a collision course with
Earth, they will be found only a short time before impact, and a short warning time hinders
adoption of necessary mitigation measures. The consequences of the impact of small cosmic bodies have not
been thoroughly studied; however, they have specific features in comparison with larger impacts . During a
passage through the atmosphere small bodies become deformed and fragmented by aerodynamic forces. A resulting stream
of fragments, vapor, and air has a larger cross-section and smaller density, and releases a large
portion of its energy in the atmosphere before the impact on the ground or the surface of oceans and seas. Thus,
recently, e.g., Morrison et al. (1994, 2002), Toon et al. (1994, 1997), Binzel (2000), and Chapman et al. (2001).

amplitudes of seismic and/or tsunami waves substantially differ from those produced by impactors that hit the ground as compact
bodies. To predict these and other effects investigators need to know the shape, structure, strength, composition, and other
properties of impactors that influence the result of impacts much more than in the case of large bodies. Nevertheless, simple
estimates and analysis of the famous Tunguska event, which occurred in the almost uninhabited Siberian taiga in 1908, show that
even if energy on the order of 5-20 Mt TNT is released above the ground (e.g., at altitudes of 5-10 km in the case of the Tunguska
event), the resultant shock wave and thermal radiation produce great devastation. If

such an event were to happen

above a major city with a size of about 20-30 km and a population of several million persons, economic losses and
human casualties would be enormous . Hazardous factors such as shock waves , fires ,
ejection of dust and formation of soot , seismic waves , and tsunamis are now well known.
Some additional bodies: the presence on the Earths surface of so-called dangerous, e.g., hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants,
radioactive waste depositories, chemical plants producing poisonous substances, and so on. Concentration of such objects, as well as
population density, differs from one geographic region to another. Some regions, such as Europe, are much more vulnerable to
impacts than others. The

study of the consequences of small impacts is partially based on the results

of nuclear tests . The yield of the most powerful nuclear explosion exploded in the air at a low altitude above Novaya Zemlya
in 1961 was 58 Mt TNT. This is on the order of the energy released by the Tunguska meteoroid on 30 June 1908. However, cosmic

bodies, which here are named small bodies, may have a much larger kinetic energy equivalent of 10^3- 10^4 Mt TNT.
The characteristic sizes of high-pressure volumes and fireballs produced by impacts with such energies are comparable to the
atmospheric scale height. Moreover, behind a descending body heated air expands of the atmosphere leads to substantial difference
in the shock wave amplitude and thermal radiation flux at the Earths surface. Therefore, the usage of a simple energy scaling law is
not accurate, and the authors use the results of numerical simulations. High

energies, in comparison with nuclear tests, cause

severe ionospheric and magnetospheric disturbances that may lead to disruption of radio
communications and hinder normal functioning of radiolocation, GPS, and other technical
systems, which play more and more important roles for modern humanity .

extinction first
Asteroid-induced extinction is by far the biggest impact
Matheny 7 (Jason G., Professor of Health Policy and Management Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins
University, Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction, Risk Analysis, 27(5), October, http://jgmatheny.org/
matheny_extinction_risk.htm//cc)

Even if extinction events are improbable, the expected values of countermeasures could be large , as
they include the value of all future lives . This introduces a discontinuity between the CEA of
extinction and nonextinction risks. Even though the risk to any existing individual of dying in a car
crash is much greater than the risk of dying in an asteroid impact, asteroids pose a much greater risk
to the existence of future generations (we are not likely to crash all our cars at once) (Chapman, 2004 ). The
"death-toll" of an extinction-level asteroid impact is the population of Earth, plus all the
descendents of that population who would otherwise have existed if not for the
impact. There is thus a discontinuity between risks that threaten 99% of humanity and those that
threaten 100%. [CONTINUES OMITTING SEVERAL MATH-CENTRIC TABLES] I believe that if we destroy
[hu]mankind, as we now can, this outcome will be much worse than most people think. Compare three
outcomes: 1. Peace 2. A nuclear war that kills 99% of the world's existing population 3. A nuclear war that kills 100% 2 would be
worse than 1, and 3 would be worse than 2. Which is the greater of these two differences? Most people believe that the greater
difference is between 1 and 2. I believe that the difference between 2 and 3 is very much greater . The Earth

will remain
habitable for at least another billion years. Civilization began only a few thousand years ago. If we
do not destroy [hu]mankind, these thousand years may be only a tiny fraction of the whole of
civilized human history. The difference between 2 and 3 may thus be the difference between this tiny
fraction and all of the rest of this history. If we compare this possible history to a day, what has occurred so far is only
a fraction of a second. Human extinction in the next few centuries could reduce the number of future generations
by thousands or more . We take extraordinary measures to protect some endangered species from extinction. It might
be reasonable to take extraordinary measures to protect humanity from the same.19 To decide whether this is so requires more
discussion of the methodological problems mentioned here, as well as research on the extinction risks we face and the costs of
mitigating them.20

at: evacuation
Evacuation would do nothing
Lewis 1996 - professor of planetary science at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (John S., Rain of
Iron and Ice, p. 183-222)
The cost

of finding and tracking two-thousand-plus kilometer-sized bodies that cross Earth's

orbit is a few million dollars per year. Every estimate of the cost/benefit ratio that I have seen
indicates that this is a wise investment. Developing a nearly complete catalog of these larger
bodies is also clearly technically feasible, since such large bodies are relatively bright and relatively easily found. In
fact, we have located about 10 percent of them already. In down-to-Earth terms, kilometer-sized bodies are
global killers: they take die lives of a billion people per impact, and strike with explosive
powers of one hundred thousand megatons at a mean rate of four impact events per million
years. Thus the long-term average death rate from impacts is four billion people per million years, or four thousand people per year
worldwide. The people of the United States make up about 5 percent of the global population, so the average American death rate
from global-scale impacts is about two hundred per year. The death rate of American citizens from commercial aircraft crashes is
one hunched people per year. The

problem with finding and tracking these very large bodies is that
evacuation docs not work: the effects of the disasters are global . The leading cause of death is
probably famine induced by climate change. If such a body hits Earth, there are no refuges to which
people can be relocated. Moving away from the computed impact area means selecting a slow
death over a quick one. The death toll would be very little affected by any plausible relocation
effort, since Earth's ability to support life would be universally diminished. Finding, tracking,
and predicting the orbits of kilometer-sized bodies is neither technically demanding nor fiscally
draining; rather, the problem arises when we ask what we would do with the knowledge. We can in fact do nothing
meaningful to avoid this threat unless we use space technology to divert or destroy the
threatening objects. The prospect of letting one hit our densely populated planet is unacceptable.

at: timeframe long

Even if the timeframe is long its irrelevantwe should evaluate impacts in a frame
of millennia
Verschuur 1996 (Gerrit, Adjunct Prof of Physics at U of Memphis, Impact: the Threat of
Comets and Asteroids, p. 216)
There is an even more subtle reason why we

are unlikely to take collective and significant action to assure

the long-term survival of our species. It manifests as the psychological syndrome known as the "illusion of
invulnerability." Individuals cannot believe that they will personally succumb in the next
catastrophe. This syndrome is at play in those who live happily in earthquake zones, in
floodplains, or on the sides of active volcanoes. The existence of the syndrome poses a paradox. If we are
concerned about the long-term survival of civilization, we must overcome our genetic
predisposition to deal only with the immediate future. Dealing with short-term issues is natural in all animals,
and represents the practical way in which to survive from day to day. However, this predisposition is not conducive to
assuring a long-term existence. Perhaps that is what is at issue. We have learned much about the natural universe in
recent years, and the mind's eye has only just developed the ability to scan millions of years of time. Yet that seems to be no more
than an intellectual exercise with little practical use. Perhaps the

evolution of our species may yet depend on

whether we can succeed in making very long term plans and carrying them out for the benefit of
life on earth. Scientific discovery has brought us to the point where we confront the awesome
probability that collision with an earth-crossing object will bring an end to civilization. It is no
longer a question of whether a massive impact will occur in the future; it is only a matter of
when. Even if we think it will be a thousand years from now, the point of raising the issue is to
ask ourselves what we plan to do about it. It may be time to think in terms of thousands of years
into the future. I am assuming that we care that our species will be around for a long time, and that this question is worth
thinking about.

at: probability
Asteroids shatter standard risk analysisvote Aff no matter how low the
probability of our advantage is
Posner 2004 (Richard, US Court of Appeals judge and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Catastrophe:
Risk and Response 249-250)

Even if our insouciant reaction to small probabilities of great losses is accepted as an authentic
basis for estimating the value of life in most such situations, the reaction may not generalize to
ones in which the loss, should it materialize, would be the near or total extinction of the human race.
If the annual probability of an asteroid collision that would kill 6 billion people is only 1 in 75
million, the expected number of deaths worldwide is only 80 per year, which may not seem a
large enough number to justify the expense of an effective defense against an asteroid collision. (This of
course ignores smaller but still lethal collisions; but read on.) But if there is a minute chance that the entire
human race, both current and future, would be wiped out, together with all or most of the
worlds animal population, we (the ambiguous we of policy analysis, but there it may represent dominant public opinion)
may think that something should be done to eliminate or reduce the risk, slight as it is, beyond what
a standard cost-benefit analysis would imply; may be willing, if the risk and the possible responses are explained
carefully, to incur some cost in higher taxes or otherwise to reduce the risk.

Denial strategies are wrongconstant asteroid risk means that we only have to be
wrong a single time and the human species will end
Barbee 9 (4/1, Brent W., BS, Aerospace Engineering degree from UT Austin; MS in Engineering from the Department of
Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics at the University of Texas, Austin specializing in Astrodynamics and Spacecraft
Mission Design, currently working as an Aerospace Engineer and Planetary Defense Scientist with the Emergent Space Technologies
company in Greenbelt, Maryland, teaches graduate Astrodynamics in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at The University of
Maryland, College Park, Planetary Defense, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational//apj-s/2009/1tri09/barbeeeng.htm)

It is generally accepted that statistics and probability theory is the best way to handle partial
information problems. Gamblers and insurance companies employ it extensively. However, one
of the underlying premises is that it is acceptable to be wrong sometimes. If a gambler makes a
bad play, the hope is that the gambler has made more good plays than bad ones and still comes
out ahead. This however is not applicable to planetary defense against NEOs. Being wrong just
once may prove fatal to millions of people or to our entire species. If we trust our statistical
estimates of the NEO population and our perceived collision probabilities too much, we risk
horrific damage or even extinction. This is how we must define the limit for how useful
probability theory is in the decision-making process for defense against NEOs.

asteroids advinternal links

space training
Aquarius enables effective space research and training
Clay, 4 staff writer (Diane, The age of Aquarius; Underwater lab prepares aquanauts to act as team on future space missions,
July 20, 2004, The Oklahoman, lexis)//AE

Beneath the clear green water off the coast of Key Largo, Fla., sits a yellow laboratory that four
aquanauts call home. The three men and one woman sleep, cook, work and play in the 400-cubic-foot habitat that is
anchored to the ocean floor about 50 feet below the water's surface and 3 1/2 miles from shore. They are part of an underwater
research project begun by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1986. Among

the latest crew to dive to

the laboratory named Aquarius is astronaut John Herrington, who was born in Wetumka. As the only
member of Crew 6 to have flown in space, Herrington hopes to offer guidance to his crewmates
about the similarities of living and "walking" underwater and life aboard the
International Space Station , where Herrington worked for 13 days in November 2002. Herrington's crew
dove to Aquarius this past week and will return to the surface Wednesday during their "splash
up." "It's very similar to living in space. The fact the stuff doesn't float is the only
difference," Herrington told The Oklahoman from Aquarius. "People working in close quarters is very, very
similar." During their 10-day stay, the aquanauts will work on research projects designed to help
scientists understand how better to work and travel in space. They are testing bacteria-resistant
clothing and bed linens and a resistance machine to maintain muscle mass in orbit as well as
completing other engineering tasks. Crew members who haven't flown in space also are learning
valuable lessons on how to prepare for missions outside of Aquarius or a space station . "One of the
lessons I will take away from this is to not only understand the mission, but to make sure you have everything tethered properly
before you exit the vehicle," astronaut Nick Patrick said. Aquanauts

have a lot of time to learn readiness on the

mission with two extravehicular activities, or "space walks," scheduled each day. Biomedical engineer Tara Ruttley,
the only nonastronaut on the mission, said Aquarius provides one of the few locations in the world
where future space travelers can practice how to work as a team while operating a
habitat for long-duration trips. "This is the best situation I can think of to be secluded
where, if hardware has issues, we'll have to deal with it and solve it as a team, like in space," she
said. "This is a situation I personally can't get in a simulator." Herrington, Patrick, Ruttley and astronaut Doug Wheelock make
up the sixth crew to descend to Aquarius. The laboratory was originally set up in the U.S. Virgin Islands but was later moved off the
coast of Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The habitat is owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and run by its undersea research program. The laboratory has hosted more than 200 scientists from 90
organizations, including NASA and several universities in the United States and elsewhere. Scientists

who travel to
Aquarius to study nonspace-related topics learn about the changing ocean and the condition of
coral reefs. The added pressure at Aquarius, which is 2 1/2 times the pressure at sea level, forces visitors to limit their trips to
about an hour or face a 17-hour decompression before returning to the surface. It is another of many obstacles aquanauts must
overcome in their quest to prepare for space travel. "I

hope to learn how it is to live in a closed environment;

to make it an experience that's an analog for the space station," Patrick said. "We all will take
away from this a fabulous appreciation for undersea life."
Aquarius is super cheap and is pretty much space
Hallwarth 12Author and Journalist (Ben, The Closure Of Aquarius Reef Base And America's Scientific Ambitions
Posted: 07/13/2012 12:00 pm http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-hellwarth/aquarius-reef-base-closure_b_1671280.html//cc)
Tough budgetary choices are a reality of modern U.S. politics, but

the termination of NURP, and with it, Aquarius,

adds up to an annual savings of no more than $4 million a year . The Aquarius base typically gets by
on about $2.5 million a year, a drop in the fiscal bucket compared to $450 million per space
shuttle mission or the $1.4 million the agency drops on a defunct moon program daily thanks to vague legal language.
Ironically, Aquarius's low cost has likely contributed to its low profile. The program can be cut
precisely because ordinary citizens haven't heard of it because it isn't expensive enough to be worth cutting.

The lab is a perfect example of practical spending. Operational since the late 1980s and situated 60 feet below the
surface a few miles south of the Florida Keys, Aquarius has quietly given scientists prolonged access to the
seabed, a unique opportunity to observer the oceanic ecosystem consistently and over time . "Being
able to study the animals and plants in their home using an underwater habitat gives me the gift of time," says Sylvia Earle, the
National Geographic Society Explorer-in-Residence known as "Her Deepness" thanks to a long and prosperous career under the
waves. "Time to see what these magnificent life forms are actually doing on the reef; time to notice the small and seemingly
insignificant things that later turn out to be a sea secret. Every time I live underwater I come back with new insights and a hundred
new questions." The many marine

researchers who have taken part in more than 120 Aquarius missions
version of "to really know the sea, you have to live and work in
the sea." Scientists have several hundred published papers in top-notch journals to show for
their time on the bottom spent studying conditions that relate both to life on the reef itself and
to larger issues, like ocean acidification and the overall health of the oceans, which is of course
inextricably linked to the health of the earth. A coral reef like this one is a good place for a
researcher to be stationed, says Mark Patterson, a professor of marine science at the College of William & Mary who
was in on selecting the Aquarius site, a sandy patch in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. "Coral reefs are
the most diverse ecosystems in the ocean and may also have the highest biodiversity of perhaps
any habitat on the planet, certainly equal to the rainforest if not exceeding it ," says Patterson, who will
over the years often say the same thing -- a

join Earle on an eight-day mission set to begin July 14. The researchers will be focusing on the biology of corals and sponges on the
reef, where, among other things, changes related to global warming have made sponges more dominant than corals. They will also
be waving for the cameras. Aquarius operators hope to attract public attention by bringing Dr. Earle along for the rinse. U.S. Rep.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, whose congressional district includes the Florida Keys, will be taking the dip as well, encouraging NOAA to
fund the project with a sliver of its $5 billion budget. Just in case this last dip effort doesn't work, supporters have hurriedly set up a
nonprofit Aquarius Foundation and begun raising money to keep the base in business, says Tom Potts, the base's director. The
Foundation's board already boasts some prominent members, including renowned underwater photographer Stephen Frink, former
Wall Street financier Audra Santoro and Joseph Pawlik, a professor in the Department of Biology and Marine Biology at the
University of North Carolina Wilmington. But these names, while notable, are not nearly so well known as those Potts hopes to
attract. The producer Jon Landau, whose credits include "Avatar" and "Titanic," was recently invited to pay a visit to Aquarius. After
resurfacing, he suggested that his frequent collaborator James Cameron, follow his lead. Though Cameron, an avid underwater
explorer himself, has not made a pilgrimage yet, his presence could draw additional attention to base's tenuous position as two
established nonprofit organizations, the Divers Alert Network and One World One Ocean, funnel donations to the foundation.
Negotiations are now under way to keep money flowing from NOAA long enough to ease a potential public to private transition for

The
Aquarius habitat itself, encrusted with sea life after years on the bottom, is just over forty feet long and tank-like in
appearance, a pressurized, climate-controlled underwater RV. It can hold up to six occupants who can don diving gear
the dozen or so staff and contract workers who run the base out of a pair of converted canal-front houses in Key Largo.

and swim into the surrounding water at any time of day or night. They come and go through a door-sized hatch in the floor that
remains open. The elevated air pressure inside the habitat matches the water pressure outside so the
water stops at the doorstep, forming a kind of liquid looking glass. The aquanauts can spend hours at a time outside the habitat, far
longer than the mere minutes they'd have if making ordinary dives from the surface, a historic breakthrough attributable to diving
methods developed in the 1960s. Navy

divers have trained at Aquarius, and just last month NASA

astronauts were back for another in an ongoing series of training missions . It turns out that living
and working on the sea floor is about the closest the astronauts can get on earth to
the experience of living and working, say, on an asteroid -- weightless, isolated, and
subject to all manner of unexpected occurrences in a hostile environment. This Navy and NASA
use has also provided a welcome source of revenue for Aquarius -- the proverbial win-win.
NEEMO key to space training
Crucian 14NASA Johnson Space Center, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences
(Brian, Richard J. SimpsonLaboratory of Integrated Physiology, Department of Health and Human Performance Satish Mehta,
Raymond Stowe, Alexander Chouker, Shen-An Hwang, Jeffrey K. Actor, Alex P. Salam, Duane Pierson, Clarence Sams, University of
Texas-Houston Medical School, Department of Pathology, Terrestrial stress analogs for spaceflight associated immune system
dysregulation, Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, Volume 39, July 2014, Pages 2332 Exercise Immunology in Health and
Disease//cc)
4.3. Undersea (NEEMO) The NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations ( NEEMO) consists

of up to 14 day
undersea deployment at the Aquarius station. Aquarius is an underwater ocean laboratory located in the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The laboratory is deployed three and half miles offshore, at a depth of 60 feet, next to spectacular
coral reefs. Scientists

live in Aquarius during 10-day missions using saturation diving to study and
explore our coastal ocean. Aquarius is owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and is
operated by the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Some characteristics of Aquarius include: seafloor depth of 62 feet;
operating depth (on stilts) of 47 feet; interior pressure of 2.5 Atos; living space of 43 ft 9 ft; saturation diving conditions (17 h
decompression required for surface return). NASA

conducts space analog missions onboard Aquarius for up

to 2 weeks duration, with aquanaut conducting up to 69 h of external suited dives per day. NASA perceives
Aquarius deployment as a short-duration ground-based analog for some aspects of spaceflight .
Onboard Aquarius, a station-based lifestyle, mission stress, isolation and circadian rhythm shift are replicated to high fidelity. Other
flight aspects, such as microgravity, are not part of this analog. NEEMO

missions consist of actual (not simulated)

deployment, real-time station lifestyle, and legitimate risk associated with saturation diving .
Important for analog fidelity, NEEMO crews typically consist of actual astronauts. This allows a direct
analog and flight data comparison, which aids in validation of the analog conditions compared
to flight. NASA has conducted a pilot investigation of immune and viral measures during NEEMO missions. Assays included:
immunophenotype analysis, T cell number, cytometric bead array analysis of cytokines, MHC tetramer analysis of viral specific T
cell function, peptide stimulation for viral specific T cell function, and PCR for latent viral reactivation. Blood and saliva samples
were collected before, during, and following undersea deployment. Alterations during deployment included granulocytosis and an
elevated percentage of bulk memory T cells (Crucian and Sams, 2004 and Strewe et al., 2012). The CD4:CD8 ratio was not altered
during NEEMO missions. General T cell function was reduced during NEEMO missions in roughly 50% of subjects (a similar finding
to Shuttle crewmembers). Total bulk IFNg production declined significantly by mission day 11. Production of several inflammatory
cytokines rose during later-phases of NEEMO missions. Assuming 7 days post-return to be the more appropriate baseline: T cell
production of IFNg, IL-5, IL-10, IL-2, TNFa and IL-6 were all reduced before (L-6) and during the missions. Conversely, monocyte
production of TNFa, IL-10, IL-6, IL-1b and IL-8 were elevated during mission, more so at the MD-14 time point. Antibodies to
EpsteinBarr virus (EBV) viral capsid antigen and early antigen were increased in approximately 40% of the subjects. Changes in
EBV tetramer-positive CD8+ T-cells exhibited a variable pattern. VZV reactivation occurred in 2 of 16 NEEMO crewmembers, EBV
reactivation in 8 crewmembers, and no CMV reactivation was observed in any of the NEEMO mission or control samples. Higher
levels of EBV reactivation were found before and during the NEEMO missions. EBV viral load was generally elevated at L-6. Since

some changes in both immune and viral parameters occurred during NEEMO missions are
similar to those observed during spaceflight, NEEMO missions have the potential to be a useful
space analog. Six days prior may be too near to mission start to serve as an appropriate baseline measurement, which is also the
case for Shuttle and ISS missions. A mechanism would need to be found to allow earlier sampling of
NEEMO crews. Although an analog with significantly longer duration would be superior (AWO),
the tremendous ease of utility for NEEMO missions (compared to AWO) make this analog attractive
for rapid low cost assessments. Longer NEEMO missions are possible (potentially up to 30 days)
which may improve analog utility.
Its great for scientific research and asteroid simulations
Clark 12 (Cammy, World's last underwater-habitat lab may fall to NOAA budget cut Once there were as many as 60 underwater
habitats around the globe. But excitement for such research habitats dwindled as the money dried up. Today, there is just one
operating Aquarius, off Key Largo and NOAA plans to kill it. By Cammy Clark The Miami Herald Originally published Saturday,
August 11, 2012 at 6:01 AM http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2018894602_sealabs12.html//cc)
KEY LARGO, Fla. In 1962, seven years before astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped onto the moon, Albert Falco and Claude Wesly
captured the world's imagination by becoming the first humans to live under the sea in a strange steel cylinder developed by Jacques
Cousteau. Conshelf I, heralded as the world's first underwater habitat , was basically a big yellow oil drum with
a hole in the bottom but it had the comforts of home with a TV, radio, library and bed. For one week, Falco and Wesly lived and
worked at 33 feet under the sea off the coast of Marseilles, France. The mysterious deep-blue oceans became more exciting and more
inviting, beginning a new era of exploration and research. Soon, more than 60 underwater habitats from 17 countries would take the
plunge, including the U.S. Navy's SEALAB, the General Electric-developed Tektite, the U.S. government's Hydrolab and La Chalupa
Research Laboratory developed by ocean explorer and entrepreneur Ian Koblick, who lives in Key Largo. But over the decades,

the excitement for offshore underwater-research habitats died down as the money dried up.
Today, there is just one operating in the world: Aquarius, anchored for the past 20 years in waters 3 miles off
Key Largo. By the end of this year, there could be none . "It's a bit disheartening that Aquarius could go away the
last underwater habitat," said Craig Cooper, who retired two years ago after 19 years as Aquarius' operations director. "When I was
young, I thought we'd all be living down in the sea in condos. But I found out the ocean is a tougher place than it looks to be from the
surface." Death by NOAA budget In
Administration (NOAA), which

its proposed $5 billion 2013 budget, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
owns Aquarius, has called for termination of the one-of-a-kind reef-base

program despite its minimal operating cost of $1.2 million to $3 million . "That amount is what people at
the Pentagon call decimal dust a number way too small it's past the decimal point in the budget," said Mark Patterson, professor
of marine science at the College of William and Mary. "For that little amount, it could be the end of an era. "But we all hope not," he
added. "Aquarius is too valuable to lose." Leading the battle in Washington, D.C., is U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, RFlorida, who represents the Keys and has made four dives to Aquarius. She and fellow Florida House Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart
and David Rivera took a boat ride out to Aquarius in mid-July, applauding the aquanauts when they finished their long
decompression after a week of living in the sea. "There is no other underwater facility like it," Ros-Lehtinen said in a phone call from
Washington. "It deserves our support." The three Congress members met this month in Washington with NOAA's head, Jane
Lubchenco, to urge her to divert $2 million to fund Aquarius for next year. Lubchenco said in a statement that the Aquarius program
has been a "vital part" of ocean research, "but unfortunately our budget environment is very, very challenging and we are unable to
do all that we would like." Valuable training spot Renowned

ocean explorer and former NOAA chief scientist

Sylvia Earle, known as "Her Deepness," called the decision to end the underwater-research program "stupid."
Aquarius has served scientists, researchers, underwater filmmakers and Navy divers. Forty
NASA astronauts also have trained in the habitat before going to space. The yellow, 81-ton pressurized
tube has six bunks, a bathroom, galley (kitchen), science station, state-of-the-art communications and "wet porch," from which
aquanauts can enter and exit. The habitat's best asset is its ability to give aquanauts the "gift of time." They can

work for
long hours in the ocean without worrying about having to surface for air. The habitat also
provides an "alien atmosphere" that simulates a space station and the zero gravity of asteroids .
Last month, Earle and Patterson led Aquarius' 117th and possibly last mission. For seven days, six aquanauts lived and worked
at 60 feet below the surface at thriving Conch Reef. They conducted three science projects, while celebrating the 50th anniversary of
human habitation on the seafloor. But the mission primarily was a public-relations crusade to save Aquarius from being mothballed.
Underwater filmmaker DJ Roller, one of the aquanauts, provided free streamed footage of the mission. Nearly 250,000 people
watched. "We made a cool discovery," Patterson said. The aquanauts learned that Goliath groupers disable their prey by blasting
them with sound created by cavitation bubbles, which are caused by extreme pressure drops in their mouths. "When the bubble
collapses it makes an incredible shock wave," Patterson said. "You hear a low base click and hear a thump going through your chest

More than
300 scientific papers stemming from work at Aquarius already have been published in major
science journals. He said there is so much more to learn, including potential medical
breakthroughs. "Locked away in the body of sponges could be the complex compounds that have
the cure for cancer," he said. Thomas Potts, director of the Aquarius Reef Base Program, said now is not the time to end this
last-of-its kind program. "We should be triple or quadrupling what we are doing," he said. " We're just starting to touch
the surface of learning about ocean acidification and global climate change on the reefs. We
finally have the technology that allows us to develop sensors to take a good look in the water
column and see what's happening at the bottom." Cooper, Aquarius' former operations director, blames himself
like somebody punched you in the gut." Patterson said this discovery likely will become published after peer review.

for not doing enough to publicize their numerous accomplishments on a lean budget. "Not being part of the Beltway three-piece
suiters, I felt the best way to survive was stay as invisible as possible," he said. "Maybe that hurt us." But the ocean has always played
second fiddle to the atmosphere and space in attention and funding. Ben Hellwarth, who wrote the new book "SEALAB: America's
Forgotten Quest to Live and Work on the Ocean Floor," said if Aquarius' possible last mission had been the United States' possible
last trip to the space station or orbit, "We'd be hearing a lot more about it. Maybe the sea is seen as a dark and spooky place and the
heavens up there are good and celestial and sparkling."

key to neemo
Aquarius acts as an analog for lunar habitat missions
Rudisill et al 08 -* Ph.D. NASA Langley Research Center, (*Marianne, ** Robert Howard, Ph.D. NASA Johnson Space
Center,***Brand Griffin Gray Research, Inc, **** Jennifer Green Casitair Consulting, ***** Larry Toups NASA Johnson Space
Center, ****** Kriss Kennedy NASA Johnson Space Center, Lunar Architecture Team - Phase 2 Habitat Volume Estimation:
Caution When Using Analogs, 2008, http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080013517.pdf) //CW

Particular attention was given to Aquarius, NOAAs undersea habitat that NASA presently uses
as a lunar analog via the NEEMO (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations) Project. Aquarius is
representative of a lunar surface habitat in size (~3 m diameter x 14 m long), in construction (hard shell
cylinder), in crew size (research crew of four, with two maintenance crew), in crew facilities
(including workstations, galley/ wardroom, crew bunks, waste management, and personal
hygiene), in operations (e.g., daily excursions similar to lunar surface EVA, tests of remote
medical operations), and in minimum mission durations (typically 14 days). The Aquarius has three
habitation compartments providing a total of ~74 m3 of habitable living and working space (Wet Porch = 20 m3 ; Entry Lock = 14 m3 , Main Lock = 40
m3 volume). However, there are some notable differences between Aquarius and a lunar base that need to be considered when using this undersea
habitat as an analog. Some of these differences are: Life Support: On Aquarius, the life support system is encased in a buoy at the surface, rather than
integrated into the habitat. Crew Provisioning: Given the nearby location of the support facility, Aquarius crews are supplied with provisions daily;
thus, there is little volume devoted to stowage in the undersea facility. This is quite different from the logistics system on a lunar base and potentially
significant volumes associated with stowage and handling of provisions may be required. Crew Health Care: Given that the support facility is nearby, a
crew medical problem can be handled rather directly (although bringing a crewmember to the surface is not immediate because of decompression
requirements). On a lunar outpost, there must be a portion of volume devoted specifically to a crew healthcare system. In addition, because of the
nature of human deconditioning when not in 1 g, lunar crews will most likely need to exercise regularly (although how much exercise is required has not
been determined, given the sparse lunar surface operations experience base). Mission Control: Primary mission control for Aquarius is at the surface
base. On a lunar base, mission control will remain in Houston (as presently exists for the ISS, for example); however, given the distance between a
lunar polar base and the Earth, it is expected that lunar crews will operate with some autonomy. In addition, one purpose for the lunar outpost is to
permit NASA to simulate a Mars mission, which undoubtedly would operate with a high degree of autonomy. Therefore, it is expected that daily
oversight of mission operations would migrate to the lunar outpost. NASA

has, thus far, fielded seven NEEMO missions

to the Aquarius habitat, specifically to test potential lunar base systems and operations and to
gain first hand knowledge of these types of operations. The mission durations have ranged from
seven to 18 days. In addition, we have developed a habitation questionnaire to administer to
NEEMO crews that will give us first hand information about living in the Aquarius facility to use
in designing the lunar base and we trained the last NEEMO crew to take dimension
measurements to enable us to build a detailed model of the Aquarius habitat. NASA plans to
continue to use Aquarius as a lunar habitat analog and the potential is to eventually conduct
NEEMO missions to be more similar to those planned for a lunar base; we will use the NEEMO
information and that derived from other earth-based analogs to design the lunar base.
Aquarius is key to ensure NEEMO projects and indepth ocean researchbudget
issues threaten effectiveness
Kay 12 - an award-winning, Miami-based reporter for The Associated Press. (JENNIFER, Aquarius Reef Base: World's Last
Undersea Lab Imperiled By Funding Cuts (VIDEO, PHOTOS), 7/19/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/aquariusreef-base-unders_n_1688285.html) //CW
IN THE OCEAN OFF KEY LARGO, Fla. -- Ocean explorer Sylvia Earle sported one Rolex dive watch on each wrist as she slipped beneath the balmy
waters of the Florida Keys for a weeklong stay at an undersea research lab where marine biologists have kept constant watch on a coral reef. In 1970,

prolonged
underwater exploration was still something of a novelty. She got a larger black dive watch not
long before arriving in Key Largo last week for what could be the last mission for her and other
scientists to the Aquarius Reef Base. It seems that time has almost run out for the lab in the
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. The mission ending Saturday could be the last at the last publically funded lab of its
kind, because the Obama administration has cut Aquarius' $3 million annual funding. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration owns the lab that has rested for two decades some 60
feet below the water's surface. The federal budget cuts threaten to close the lab unless it can
secure private funding. "At the very time the ocean needs all the help it can get, it really is a travesty," said Earle, former chief scientist at NOAA
and currently explorer-in-residence at National Geographic. She's staying at Aquarius for the third time. Aquarius is a pressurized lab
Rolex gave Earle a small gold watch when she led the first team of women "aquanauts" to a lab off the U.S. Virgin Islands. Back then,

whose residents are called "aquanauts." Air, hot running water, electricity and high-speed
communications lines snake down from a life support buoy to those confined to the 43-foot-long
metal tube. Food, computers and supplies are delivered in water-tight drums. Scientists and
support staff who scuba dive to the lab reside in a 400-square-foot chamber that includes a
kitchen and bunks six. From video streamed live from the lab this week, it looks like Earle and five other scientists, filmmakers and staff
are living in a mobile home encrusted with coral. The base lets researchers scuba dive up to nine continuous hours
a day on the reef, seeing marine life transition from day to night. No breaks are needed to return
to the surface, and no decompressing. Scientists say they accomplish in a week what might take
months to do in shorter dives from a boat .<<video removed>> Mark Patterson, a marine science professor at the Virginia
Institute of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary, is at Aquarius for the eighth time for research involving corals, sponges, plankton and
goliath grouper. He also builds underwater robots, but said adamantly that scientists must spend time underwater. This week, he's brought electrodetipped instruments to measure corals. "A robot could never do this in a million years, even though I love robots to death," Patterson said. Without
Aquarius, in future experiments he'll have to transfer corals in limited dives from a boat to a lab on land. "I'll have to do my science in a very different
way," Patterson said. Year-round

research for two decades at Aquarius has allowed scientists to compile

a continuous stream of data from one reef in a region where the fragile ocean ecosystems have
rapidly declined. Scientists largely blame climate change and man-made stresses for the change.
"The trend is not good. The good news is, we know why," Earle said in a video chat Tuesday from Aquarius, as fish
glided past the window behind her. Advanced diving techniques pioneered 50 years ago by explorers such as Ed Link and Jacques Cousteau allowed
people to stay underwater for days or weeks at a time. These

techniques also have been adapted for offshore drilling

operations, and one lab has been turned into an undersea hotel off Key Largo. But Aquarius
appears to be the only underwater research station left. Since 2001, NASA also has trained
astronauts to live and work in space at Aquarius, including a mission in June that simulated a
visit to an asteroid. Marc Reagan, director of last month's NASA training mission at Aquarius,
said the watery environment is akin to a low earth orbit. He's optimistic other funding will
come through to keep Aquarius running and that NASA will continue to train
astronauts there. "It would be a shame to see it go away," he said. U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, RFla., said budget cutbacks were unavoidable despite congressional efforts to find the funding. Government officials have left the door open for private
funding to continue research there. "Unfortunately,

our budget environment is very, very challenging and we

are unable to do all that we would like," NOAA spokesman David Miller said, calling Aquarius
vital. "We hope that additional sources of funding can be found ." Social media and outreach for the independent
Aquarius Foundation established to raise the money to run the lab is as much a focus of this week's mission as recording more data from the reef.
Filmmaker Greg MacGillivray's One World One Ocean campaign is documenting the mission and posting live updates online. "What we're hoping is
that people will care about this national treasure and also (see) how useful it is to manage the coral reefs in the United States," Patterson said from
Aquarius. Merrill Goozner argues that the danger runs deeper. In

many precincts of the scientific enterprise, the needs

of industry have become paramount, he says, turning science into a contested terrain where
facts are increasingly contingent on who is funding the research. The whole scientific
revolution, which was a product of the Enlightenment, is threatened when you
commercialize science, he warns.
Aquarius is uniquely the best place to train for asteroid missionsexperienced
aquanauts agree
Harrigan 12 (quoting experienced aquanaut Mike Gernhardt and mission commander Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger) writer
on Alert Diver (Bill, NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations, 2012, http://www.alertdiver.com/NEEMO) //CW

Neutral buoyancy isn't just a good skill it's one of the great joys of diving. Where else on earth
besides underwater can you thumb your nose at gravity? Has anyone in the history of scuba diving not imagined at
least once he was flying like Superman or floating in space like an astronaut? If you're like me and you do that sort of thing all the time, don't worry;

real astronauts do it, too. NASA has been conducting training missions at the Aquarius Reef
Base underwater habitat off Key Largo, Fla., since 2001 in a series of projects called NASA
Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO). Taking advantage of the similarities
between working 60 feet below the surface for a week from a tiny research habitat and working
in space for a week from a tiny spacecraft, NASA has staged as many as three projects a year

from Aquarius, each one designed to provide specific tests and training for future space flights .
NEEMO 16, which looked about 15 years into the future at the possible exploration of asteroids in orbit around the sun, was completed this past June. I
was invited to photograph the astronauts at work outside Aquarius, and despite the large crowd at the site, it was a thrill. The exercise had the precisely
controlled frenzy of a Hollywood blockbuster being filmed underwater: elaborate sets, divers in high-tech gear, submersibles, floodlights and miles of
cable and hose. Two

team members, Kimiya Yui and Steven Squyres, were intently carrying out a
planned excursion from "Spacecraft Aquarius" to specially constructed "asteroids" on the sandy
seafloor adjacent to the reef. Two DeepWorker 2000 submersibles hovered back and forth,
standing in as single-person space-exploration vehicles. Special booms attached to the subs
allowed the astronauts to clip into their boots like skiers. An army of support divers filtered up
and down from the surface ships, using their allotted bottom time to guide umbilical hoses,
position gear, video the proceedings and help keep everyone safe. Being careful not to interrupt, I photographed
the astronauts as they used the subs to maneuver themselves to a spot on the "asteroid" and attempted to collect samples. Even clipped securely to the
sub, the difficulty of the task was apparent. Both Yui and Squyres remained completely focused on the job at hand, never becoming distracted by me or
by the dozens of support personnel. I was impressed by the realism of the whole scene. Later, at NASA's Mobile Mission Control Center in Key Largo, I
asked Mike

Gernhardt, principal investigator for NEEMO 16 and a participant in NEEMO 1 and

NEEMO 8, if the underwater experience really translated to space. He smiled and assured me it
did with "high fidelity." A veteran astronaut with four spacewalks under his belt, Gernhardt
speaks from experience. He explained that some of that fidelity was due to the similarity of the
environments, but a big part of it resulted from the detail NASA puts into the planning and
execution of the mission getting the kinematics right, as NASA terms it. For instance, the
astronauts are not simply fitted with weights for neutral buoyancy. Their weight is carefully
calculated to simulate the gravity of the practice area. For NEEMO 16, they were nearly weightless as they would be in the
microgravity of an asteroid. In other years the target was moon gravity, and the astronauts left Aquarius negatively buoyant
at about a quarter of their earth weight, as they would be on the moon. That level of detail
extended to every facet of the project: A 50-second delay was incorporated to make
communication realistic. Every excursion outside Aquarius was designed to accurately mimic
spacewalks in terms of time, distance and task. Gernhardt said there are only two significant differences between inner and
outer space that couldn't be adjusted for on NEEMO projects. The first is the viscosity of water. "Space walking underwater is like walking across a
muddy field wearing a pair of heavy boots," he said. "In actual space, it's like you're on ice skates." The second difference is all the sea life. Flashing
another smile, he said, "Space is antiseptic compared to the ocean. Down here, you're surrounded by life; up there well, it's space, but the visibility is

Speaking from Aquarius on the last day of NEEMO 16, mission commander
Dottie Metcalf-Lindenburger told me there was no other place they could do so
much to sort out procedures and techniques for a future asteroid exploration . "We
made multiple space walks' each day," she said, "testing how to move, how to anchor ourselves
and how well our tools work, all under extremely realistic conditions. I can't imagine a more
productive environment." The NEEMO projects may take place underwater, but what's
happening at Aquarius is space pioneering. Down there is where NASA sorts out the ideas, tests
the hardware, works out the procedures and decides how many people are needed for the next
big push in space exploration all for a price tag that's economical rather than astronomical . Yet,
NEEMO 16 may be the last NEEMO project because, after 20 years of operation, Aquarius is on the federal government's
budget chopping block. The habitat is owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which pays the University
incredible."

of North Carolina to run the habitat as part of the National Undersea Research Center (NURC). Even without factoring in Aquarius' research and naval
missions, surely the undersea habitat is an asset worth keeping. The exploration of space, inner and outer, should at least be high enough on our list of
national priorities to avoid talk of elimination. I hope Aquarius is around to host NEEMO 17 and that NASA has the funds to put the next class of
astronauts underwater to prepare for space. The next time I'm hanging on the line for a 15-foot safety stop, instead of counting the minutes, I'm going
to imagine myself spacewalking outside the shuttle like Gernhardt and all the other Aquarius-trained astronauts, balanced on the edge of the universe
as the blue arc of planet Earth rises into view.

NOAA concludes that Aquarius is key

NOAA 12 (NOAA, NEEMO MISSION, 2012, http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/science/neemo/welcome.html) //CW
On Monday,

a NASA mission splashed down off Key Largo, Fla. Unlike some NASA ventures,
however, "splashdown" wasnt the end of the mission it was just the beginning. Called
"NEEMO" (NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations project), the expedition involves crew of astronauts and

scientists spending nearly two weeks in the Aquarius Reef Base, 60 feet below the surface of
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. What are astronauts doing under the sea? Well, to prepare its teams for life in the
harsh, zero-gravity environment of space, NASA needs somewhere they can train that simulates those
same airless, weightless conditions. Much like space, the undersea world is a
hostile, alien place for humans to live. And Aquarius, the worlds only underwater
habitat, enables astronauts to spend days on end training in just such an
environment.
Funding Aquarius is key to ensure asteroid mission
Griffin 13 - Editor at 33 Universal , previously a writer for Science World Report (Catherine, NASA's Asteroid Capture
Initiative Benefits from Rich History (Video), 6/12/13, http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6201/20130412/nasasasteroid-capture-initiative-benefits-rich-history-video.htm) //CW

Yet this idea isn't the first time that NASA has contemplated this kind of mission . The idea possesses a
rich history that stretches back to the 1970s. In those years, NASA actually examined potential ways to use existing
hardware to visit an asteroid and understand its characteristics. In order to prepare for this kind
of potential mission, the space agency improved knowledge of how humans can live and work in
space and examined many possible mission concepts to help define what capabilities are needed
to push the boundaries of space exploration. In fact, the agency has conducted everything from
underwater tests at the Aquarius Reef Base off of the coast of Florida to training in space. During
its 2012 Research and Technology Studies ground test, NASA actually simulated an asteroid
mission. During the test, a team evaluated how astronauts might conduct a spacewalk on an asteroid and accomplish other goals. Different
techniques would need to be utilized on an asteroid, which means that researchers have to hone
these methods before a potential mission actually takes place . It remains to be seen whether or
not this asteroid capturing mission will occur. If it does receive funding, though, researchers
could investigate the nature of asteroids which could provide them a glimpse into the origins of
the solar system.
Aquarius is key to NASAs asteroid initiative only place to train astronauts
NASA 13 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is the agency of the United States government
that is responsible for the nation's civilian space program and for aeronautics and aerospace research (NASA,
NASA's Asteroid Initiative Benefits From Rich History, 4/10/13,
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/asteroids/news/asteroid_initiative.html#.U7rueY1dU4I) //CW

NASA's FY2014 budget proposal includes a plan to robotically capture a small near-Earth
asteroid and redirect it safely to a stable orbit in the Earth-moon system where astronauts can
visit and explore it. Performing these elements for the proposed asteroid initiative integrates the best of NASA's science, technology and
human exploration capabilities and draws on the innovation of America's brightest scientists and engineers. It uses current and developing capabilities
to find both large asteroids that pose a hazard to Earth and small asteroids that could be candidates for the initiative, accelerates our technology
development activities in high-powered solar electric propulsion and takes advantage of our hard work on the Space Launch System rocket and Orion
spacecraft, helping to keep NASA on target to reach the President's goal of sending humans to Mars in the 2030s. When

astronauts don
their spacesuits and venture out for a spacewalk on the surface of an asteroid, how they move
and take samples of it will be based on years of knowledge built by NASA scientists and
engineers who have assembled and operated the International Space Station, evaluated exploration mission concepts, sent scientific spacecraft to
characterize near-Earth objects and performed ground-based analog missions. As early as the 1970s, NASA examined potential ways
to use existing hardware to visit an asteroid to understand better its characteristics . On the International
Space Station, scientific investigations and technology demonstrations are improving knowledge of how humans can live and work in space. The agency
also has examined many possible mission concepts to help define what capabilities are needed to push the boundaries of space exploration. More: The
Long and Storied Path to Human Asteroid Exploration During the early space shuttle flights and through assembly of the space station, NASA has
relied on testing both in space and on Earth to try out ideas through a host of analog missions, or field tests, that simulate the complexity of endeavors
in space. Through

16 missions in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's

underwater Aquarius Reef Base off the coast of Key Largo, Fla., aquanauts have tested
techniques for human space exploration. These underwater tests have been built upon the

experience gained by training astronauts in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory at NASA's

Johnson Space Center in Houston to assemble and maintain the space station. The NASA
Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) 15 and 16 missions in 2011 and 2012,
respectively, simulated several challenges explorers will face when visiting an asteroid, including
how to anchor to and move around the surface of a near-Earth object and how to collect samples
of it. NASA also has simulated an asteroid mission as part of its 2012 Research and
Technology Studies ground test at Johnson. During the simulation, a team evaluated how astronauts might do a
spacewalk on an asteroid and accomplish other goals. While performing a spacewalk on a captured asteroid will
involve different techniques than the activities performed during recent analog exercises,
decisions made about ways to best sample an asteroid will be informed by the agency's on-going
concept development and past work. Scientific missions also have investigated the nature of
asteroids to provide a glimpse of the origins of the solar system . From the Pioneer 10 spacecraft, which in 1972 was
the first to venture into the Main Asteroid Belt, to the Dawn mission, which recently concluded its investigations of asteroid Vesta and is on its way to
the dwarf planet Ceres, NASA's forays help us understand the origins of the solar system and inform decisions about how to conduct missions to distant
planetary bodies. Scientists

both at NASA and across the world also continue to study asteroids to shed
light on their unique characteristics. As NASA ventures farther into the solar system, the agency
continues to simulate and evaluate operations and technical concepts for visiting an asteroid.

neemo solvency
NEEMO missions are the most effective programs to simulate life in space
Inquisitr 6/11/14 (June 11, 2014 Two NEEMO Missions Prepare Astronauts for Asteroid Landing
http://www.inquisitr.com/1294283/two-neemo-missions-prepare-astronauts-for-asteroid-landing/ preparing for neemo//cc)
When we think of NASA, the usual thought process takes us out of this world into the vast reaches of space, where a great void would
be our demise if our life-sustaining equipment were to fail. NASA is all about extreme environments, and they want to make sure
that the equipment they take off this world is in top shape. But they dont always want to leave the planet to put such equipment to
the test. In the not so distant future, NASA

wants to land people on an asteroid like the one that recently came so
NASA
Extreme Environment Mission Operations, is set up to study aquanauts under extreme
underwater conditions. These astronauts turned aquanauts are housed at a facility about 62 feet deep
under the waters of the Florida Keys, where a marine biology base has been studying the life forms for well over a decade.
close to Earth, but theyre not about to send them there without some sort of training first. NEEMO, or

Teams of aquanauts generally go down for a couple of weeks to perform EVA experiments and become acclimated to the
environment, which apparently is quite similar to outer space. The

station is the only deep-sea research facility

on Earth, and has six bunks for the aquanauts to use. It also has running water, including heated water for showers, a working
toilet, and a microwave and fridge. It even has computers with a wireless link to the surface, making the place almost like a vacation
home. And, since they are residing in the coral reef with all its gorgeous scenery as well, the photo ops down there are likely to be
excellent as well. The four NEEMO 18 aquanauts of the current mission descended down into the ocean about 3.5 miles and entered
the Aquarius research station on Monday, joining Japanese astronaut Akihiko Hoshide, who will command the mission, and ESA
astronaut Thomas Pesquet. One of the key reasons for their deep dive is the hostile environment, of course, but without anything to
do down there not much would be accomplished along those lines. That being said, theyve lined up three core areas of focus, which
are figuring out an optimum crew size, dealing with delays in communications, and discovering ways to attach their vehicles to
asteroids during the entire course of a mission on such a volatile surface. It

is critical that we perform science

applicable to NASAs exploration goals in a high-fidelity space operational context , explained Bill
Todd, the NEEMO project manager. The extreme environment of life undersea is as close to
being in space as possible. Some of their investigation will center on health issues and performance abilities, while
the NEEMO 19 team will be more focused on telementoringor voice instructions given to an astronaut from an offsite expert.

Theyll investigate the use of

tools, performing tasks in varying levels of gravity, and learning coping techniques that would be
necessary under the conditions of space.
These instructions are likely to be given during simulated spacewalks or other EVA activities.

fed key
FIU is not enoughcertainty of federal funding is key to retain the best staff at
Aquarius
Pasternack 13 (Alex, Editor-at-Large for Motherboard, The Last Sea Lab Just Barely Floats On, as NASA's Wild Asteroid
Simulation Sinks, Vice Motherboard, Feb 15, http://motherboard.vice.com/en_uk/blog/the-last-sea-lab-survives-without-nasasasteroid-simulation)
It's so expensive that last

year the U.S. government cut its funding for the Aquarius Reef Base , a 22-yearfrom $5 million to
zero. Then in January, funding for the base was partially restored, thanks to an agreement with Florida
International University, which has enough funds to maintain the base for 2013 but not enough money
to return to doing science. That brings me to another expense--on top of the ones incurred by climate change:
getting hit by an asteroid. Let me explain. For a decade, the Aquarius Reef Base, has been home to the
NEEMO project, or NASAs Extreme Environment Mission Operations, an effort to simulate zero
gravity conditions like those that would be found on an asteroid. In case an asteroid ever comes
close enough to Earth to warrant getting excited about, getting excited may well include sending
astronauts there to move it, just like in Armageddon. That's one possibility at least. Robots could be useful here
(astronauts don't like to hear that kind of talk) but a missile certainly would not be an option . This could "form
chunks that could also hit Earth," astronaut Mike Gernhardt said during my visit to the coastal command center last summer. To
properly manipulate and understand an asteroidfor scientific or mining purposesastronauts
will want to "reach out and touch it with their hands." (see this video). Gernhardt has a clear interest
in keeping Aquarius and NEEMO going: besides flying on the Space Shuttle four times, he's
been a commander and principal investigator for two NEEMO missions . Before he became an astronaut,
he was a deep sea diver who worked for years in the oil and gas industry, developing underwater robotic systems and
practicing saturation dives, the kind that Aquarius makes possible, allowing divers to work for
extended periods of time underwater without the annoyance of having to surface and
depressurize. He's also piloted a submersible on the Pavilion Lake Expedition in western Canada, which has helped NASA train
for Mars and investigated unusual life forms called microbiolites. " NEEMO plans for 2013 are still under review , so
it is not confirmed either way at this time," Nicole Cloutier, a NASA spokesperson, told me. But a lack of NASA funding
was only part of Aquarius's problems. This year's federal budget included no money for any
projects at Aquarius. When the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) consolidated programs in its
ocean exploration program, it also eliminated the undersea research program that included the reef base .
That made it impossible for the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Aquarius's steward, to keep operating
the lab. Despite pleas from scientists and the regret of NOAA's chief, last year it seemed that the 22-year-old Aquarius might have
to shut down. Then in January, the base recieved a reprieve in the form of a new steward: Florida
International University has offered to take over operation. The facility costs about $1.5 million a year for basic operations, but the
cost jumps to about $3 million when funding research projects. This year, there's only enough money to keep the
lab alive, not enough to conduct any science. Ocean science is a known need, but critics have
wondered if NASA's asteroid simulation is really worth the cash. (Many have also questioned the wisdom of
old sealab that sits in about sixty feet of water about four miles from the shore of Key Largo, Florida,

flying to an asteroid to begin with, which was the goal President Obama set in 2011, before the U.S. sets its sights on manned
missions to Mars.) NEEMO

is fun and it's spectacular, but can't NASA just drop an Airstream into its
Neutral Buoyancy Tank in Houston, the giant swimming pool where astronauts already train for missions?
Proponents say that wouldn't be the same, insisting that simulations like NEEMO are important
because they're realistic and challenging. "Being in a potentially hazardous environment - with
complicated operational issues - causes you to do things - consciously and subconsciously in a
way that you would not be inclined do in a simple tank in the building next to your office," writes
Keith Cowing of NASA Watch. "You can't just float out the hatch and return to the surface. I speak from experience
having participated in 3 expeditions to Devon Island (two were for a month) and a month at Everest Base Camp. 'Being
there' is part of the point to the planetary analogs." As Jim Fourqurean, the professor at Florida International University now

overseeing Aquarius's future, wrote in an email, "the world outside the ship is hostile to human life and the conditions require
special equipment and protection to conduct difficult tasks. This is why NASA has found Aquarius so useful, and we
expect that other agencies training astronauts will also see the value in Aquarius as a training facility." But oceanic science, not
practicing for asteroids, is still the main focus at Aquarius, and the central argument for the lab's existence. Aquarius's 400
square feet of living and research space for scientists and divers offers

not only the means for the first-hand study

of coral reefs and the ocean, but allows for the testing of new undersea technology , diver training, and
spectacular public outreach about oceanic science, especially as climate change presents new challenges like
the growing acidification that is destroying marine wildlife. "The base, of course, provides the
unique opportunity for marine scientists and engineers to be physically present, safely, for
extended time in the environment to monitor experiments, tend instruments, and make
observations," says Fourquerean. "We are looking to make Aquarius and the reef around her into the premier laboratory for the
study of the effects of climate change and ocean acidification on coral reefs." Even with money from NOAA and
potentially more state funding (something more realistic than a North Carolina university funding a project in Florida),
Fourqurean is looking at a serious funding challenge , one that will require some creative approaches. "The
real hurdles for us to clear are the development of a customer base and funding stream that will
provide some stability to the program," he writes. "Aquarius is unique, so there is not a large pool of people out there
with the training and expertise necessary to be part of the staff," a group that can take a year to train. " We have lost a lot of
good people who had to leave Aquarius for better paying jobs in the private sector because of the
yearly uncertainties in federal funding for the program."

acidification adv

key to coral reefs

Aquarius is invaluable to coral reef research allows for saturation diving which
is key
Phillips, 10 reporter (Gary, Aquarius habitat allows sea research in Upper Keys, November 26, 2010, The Reporter,
McClatchy-Tribune Business News, lexis)//AE
Nov. 26--Mankind

discovered long ago that the best possible way to study the underwater world is
to actually be there for extended periods. A simple concept, but as air-breathing mammals we've had to use our
intellect and imagination to make it possible. The Aquarius Reef Base, 60 feet deep and four miles offshore of Tavernier at
Conch Reef was the subject of a presentation at the History of Diving Museum , mile marker 82.9 in
Islamorada on Wednesday, Nov. 17. The lecture and slide show was the November installment of the museum's monthly "Immerse
Yourself" series of programs. Aquarius Operations Director Saul

Rosser, 31, said the submerged habitat allows

divers to live and work for days on end underwater , thanks to a phenomenon called " saturation
diving ." When humans go underwater the added pressure causes our bodies to absorb more
nitrogen gas into the blood than normally gets absorbed at the surface . Divers must limit their depth and
time underwater and ascend slowly and carefully from each dive to prevent nitrogen bubbles from forming in the body. This
condition is called decompression sickness, commonly called "the bends," and can be painful, paralyzing or even deadly depending
on the severity of the bubbles and their location in the body. But

if a diver can stay submerged for an extended

period, a point is reached that the body has absorbed as much nitrogen as possible, or is
"saturated." Once that occurs the diver can stay underwater for days or even weeks at a time
without incurring additional nitrogen and would have to decompress only one time at the end of
the adventure. Aquarius is owned and operated by the University of North Carolina-Wilmington and Rosser said its $2
million annual operating budget is funded primarily by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration uses the habitat to train
astronauts in a reduced-gravity environment and the U.S. Navy also does training at Aquarius .
Both agencies pay to use the facility, Rosser said. "We're a facility that exists to support outside users," Rosser
told a capacity crowd of about 100 people at the museum. " Aquarius is the only manned underwater
research station in the world." Rosser said the living quarters of the habitat are compact but
efficient, with bunks, a small galley, shower and a "wet porch" that allows divers to enter and exit through the bottom of the
habitat. A large surface buoy is attached to Aquarius by an elaborate umbilical cable that provides power, communications and air to
the researchers below. All operations of the facility are monitored 24 hours a day inside the habitat itself and at the facility's surface
support headquarters in Key Largo. Daily boat trips to Aquarius take food and supplies and remove trash and any other waste the
divers may have to dispose of. Scientist Mark

E. Hay of the Georgia Institute of Technology has been conducting

research on the effects plant-eating fish have on the health of coral reefs. He said seaweed is a
growing threat to coral and can choke it out and kill it in a matter of days in some cases . Parrotfish,
surgeonfish and other species that eat seaweed can benefit the reef by controlling the harmful plant growth. He said
having a base like Aquarius to work from is invaluable in his research. "Suppose you
wanted to visit Key West, but you could only go for an hour or so at a time and then you had to
leave," he said. "That's how regular scuba diving is when we want to study the ocean. But suppose
you could go to Key West at 6 p.m. and stay until midnight. You would get a much better look at
how the community works." Barbara Burkhard is a permanent resident of Sea Girt, N.J., but has been a Keys winter
resident since 1983. She said she learned a lot from the presentation. "I'm just so sorry I didn't know sooner that they do these
monthly programs," she said. "It's just wonderful." Museum Director Debra Illes said Aquarius and the work done there has been the
subject of previous lectures. "Their team has been great supporters of the museum and it's our honor to partner with them," she
said. "Mark

Hay's presentation just shows what a purpose Aquarius serves and adds another
dimension to them, actually seeing the results of that research. That's what diving is all about."
The History of Diving Museum's next "Immerse Yourself" program will be at 7 p.m., Dec. 15 and will be "Reefs, Wreckers and
Shipwreckers of the Florida Keys," featuring Brian LaPointe of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.

Aquarius solves coral reef research

Barton 11 (Rebecca, Aquarius Undersea Lab aids reef research Florida International University
http://www.themiamiplanet.org/2011/09/26/aquarius-undersea-lab-aids-reef-research//cc)
KEY LARGO, Fla. Key Largo is home to one of the worlds most vibrant coral reef systems , but
overfishing of important herbivorous or plant-eating fish could threaten the health of these wonders enjoyed by divers and
snorkelers alike. Deron Burkepile, 34, assistant

professor of marine biology and oceanography at Florida

International University, discovered this in 2004 during a ten-day research mission on board the worlds only underwater
ocean research center, the Aquarius Undersea Laboratory. Located in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
Aquarius sits approximately 60 feet deep at the base of Conch Reef, about four miles from Key Largo. The undersea lab is operated
by the University of North Carolina Wilmington and is owned by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). By
living in the submarine-like pressurized habitat, divers

bodies become saturated with the maximum partial

pressure of gas possible for that depth, a technique called saturation diving. Once their body tissues are saturated,
researchers can dive for up to nine hours a day and avoid the deadly decompression sickness known as the bends when they come
to the surface. After a long day of diving, these scientists also called aquanauts eat, sleep and use the Internet. They can remain
in the underwater lab for days at a time, something unheard of up to now. This is possible because of the Life Support Buoy that
floats on the surface above the lab and is about 30 feet in diameter. The buoy is a platform connected to the sea lab that provides all
the gases needed for breathing underwater. But the underwater experience may not be comfortable for some. The hardest part is
being cold all the time and constantly losing body heat, Burkepile said, referring to the heavy air conditioning used in the lab to
keep the correct air balance. Joseph Pawlik, 51, professor of marine science at University of North Carolina, Wilmington, has
conducted four missions since 1995 but has never been an aquanaut himself. I get cold too easily, Pawlik said. But I never have

Divers spending
prolonged time underwater can conduct extensive research that would be impossible if they
needed to return to the surface frequently. The lab also saves time and money , since researchers are
much closer to their work. On Pawliks most recent mission, he sent students to monitor Caribbean barrel sponges. Information
gathered by the aquanauts could be important in monitoring the future effects of the BP oil gusher
trouble finding interested students to send down. The hardest part is denying students the opportunity to go.

in the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists who want to use the Aquarius for research submit grant proposals to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. If the proposals are deemed useful, scientists are invited to conduct their work in the lab. Research
done at Aquarius can help benefit marine habitats not only in South Florida, but also around the world. The Aquarius was built in
1986 and was first used in the Virgin Islands. Thirteen missions later, it was moved to Wilmington to be refurbished after damage
from Hurricane Hugo. In 1993, it was moved to its current location and has since been the base for more than 90 successful
missions, including Burkepiles. The director of Aquarius, Thomas Potts, 46, said that since the lab has been in Key Largo,
Scientists

have acquired a long-term dataset that is essential to comprehensively and intimately

studying and documenting changes in a coral reef ecosystem that could not be attained by
disparate research projects alone. Burkepiles mission is proof of that. His project was designed to reveal the
need for diversity of herbivorous fish in coral reef systems . He and his group placed small cages along
Key Largos reef system to study how different fish eat different types of seaweed. We got to eat, sleep, and dive, Burkpile said. It
was awesome. After diving nine hours a day for ten days, Burkepile

and his scientific group found that certain

seaweed species arent eaten enough and their overgrowth could potentially harm the corals . He
and his team also concluded that overfishing of certain herbivorous fish was affecting the seaweed balance and, therefore, the health
of the coral systems. Burkepiles

missions, along with others done at the laboratory, have helped produce more
than 300 peer-reviewed scientific publications. But scientific research isnt the only use for Aquarius. Potts said
the sea lab is also used for developing undersea technology and for ocean education and
outreach. In addition, it serves as a national training facility for scientific divers. Unlike Jules Underwater Hotel in Key Largo,
which accepts guests with no scuba training, not just anyone can stay at Aquarius. Divers must go through five days of SCUBA
training to qualify for working at the lab. We had to go through intense training, Burkepile said. Our instructors would mess with
us, pull off our masks, and imitate actual emergency situations. Leaving Aquarius in the same underwater location over time has
contributed to its success. I think the biggest benefit of the Aquarius is that it has been in place for 20 years in one location, Potts
said. We can document long-term changes and have long-term data, which is very rare. Pawlik agrees. Key

Largo is an
excellent location with a great reef system, he said. There is a lot of topography and internal
waves. The longer the laboratory is there, the more valuable information we can get.

key to overall bio-d

Aquarius key to overall biodiversity impact is extinction
Naik 10 director registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) (06 Dec 2010, Gautam, U.S. News -- Reporter's
Journal: In the Depths of Aquarius --- Anchored 60 Feet Under the Sea, Lab Provides Snug Vantage Point for 'Aquanauts',
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/815946807/C0B028875C494223PQ/1?accountid=14667)//spark
AQUARIUS REEF BASE, Fla. -- Mark Hay checked his scuba gear one last time, then stepped off a boat and dived toward the
seafloor. His destination was Aquarius, the only manned underwater lab in operation in the world. The metal structure -- about
the size of a school bus -- is

anchored 60 feet beneath the surface near a flourishing coral reef a few
miles off Key Largo. Dr. Hay has been on a quest to find out if there is any tangible benefit to
preserving a large number of species from extinction , and he has done key aspects of his research
during stays here at Aquarius. Marine researchers like Dr. Hay are drawn to Aquarius because they excan conduct experiments on
the deep reef for nine hours each day or night without fear of getting the bends -- a potentially dangerous buildup of nitrogen in the
blood that forces divers to limit the length of a dive. Plus, the views aren't bad. On a recent visit, yellow damselfish peered through a
porthole and a mean-mouthed barracuda lurked nearby. "You're in this reverse aquarium -- an air bubble with windows," said Saul
Rosser, operations director of Aquarius. But the scuba-dive commute isn't the only reason it can be a tricky place to work.

Scientists -- or "aquanauts" -- stay for 10 days at a time, living, eating and sleeping in the
confined habitat. The high-pressure atmosphere in Aquarius means soda cans brought down barely fizz when opened. But
food cans get squeezed and distorted. A person's voice also tends to have a different timbre. Whistling is hard. At the end of each
mission, the interior pressure is slowly reduced until it becomes the same as that on the surface. Aquanauts can then safely return to
the surface without fear of the bends. The lab has six bunks and a shower, and the food is of the astronaut variety. The

"outhouse" toilet attached to the lab isn't fun. For starters, you have to swim to it, even if in the
dark. A person must stand in the gazebo-like structure, breathing from an air pocket in the
upper section of the structure. Waste disappears into the sea. There are phones, computers and a wireless link to shore.
During a mission, a land-based "watch desk" constantly monitors the habitat's vital signs -- including pressure and oxygen levels -while also keeping an eye on the aquanauts via video cameras. Aquarius

is owned by the U.S. National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration and is funded largely by a roughly $2 million annual grant
from the U.S. government. The habitat is run by the University of North Carolina Wilmington, and has been used for 119
missions since 1992. The reef base draws astronauts, too. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
has used Aquarius for 14 training missions to acclimate astronauts to isolated, extreme
environments and conduct outside drills that mimic spacewalks . Dr. Hay's focus is biodiversity. A
recent study in the journal Science found that a fifth of all vertebrates are
threatened with extinction . A July paper in Nature found that warmer oceans were altering marine diversity
patterns. Sea plants are in decline. "You hear about species loss all the time," said Dr. Hay, a biologist at Georgia Institute of
Technology, as he sat at the small dining table at Aquarius during his recent visit. "The question is, if you've got a thousand species
and you lose one, does it make any difference?" Dr. Hay's underwater research offers vivid evidence of why biodiversity matters. On
a reef, for example, "it's

not enough to have herbivores but the right mix of herbivores ," said Dr. Hay. "If
you remove one particular fish, things can quickly go to hell." Dr. Hay's mission is to observe the fish. In a
previous Aquarius experiment, his team built large undersea cages on sections of the reef, and stocked them with a varying mix of
herbivores, including parrot fish and surgeon fish. Herbivorous fish that eat algae are important to coral reefs because if algae
proliferate, the corals die and the entire reef ecosystem is damaged. When Dr. Hay placed two surgeon fish in a cage, for example,
22% of corals died. But cages with one parrot fish and one surgeon fish -- a

greater diversity -- showed no coral death

and a 22% increase in coral growth over 10 months. Dr. Hay's results were published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2008. He believes that because different
species have very different feeding habits on the reef, it helps to maintain the
ecological balance and give corals a greater chance to grow . Humans are now upsetting that
balance, he says. Such research "is starting to tell us that we do need a mix of species or we run into problems," says Paul Snelgrove,
a professor in the Ocean Sciences Centre at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada. " What

we don't know is if
there are key species [vital to an ecology] or biodiversity itself -- there hasn't been enough work
to tease apart those issues." In November, Dr. Hay was set to embark on another Aquarius mission, to install new fish in a
new set of 32 cages and study a different mix of herbivores over 10 months. But the mission got canceled over a safety issue. (The
Aquarius operating team has become more skittish about safety since a diver died during a mission in 2009.)

solves ocean science/research

Aquarius key to ocean science research and space
PR Newswire 13 (15 Jan 2013, FIU to operate Aquarius Reef Base,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1269490306/90510322DFF74AD0PQ/3?accountid=14667)//spark
" Aquarius

offers tremendous research opportunities, and we're ensuring that the

investment of American taxpayers continues to provide critical research results to
the country ," said Mike Heithaus, executive director of FIU's School of Environment, Arts and Society (SEAS). "For our
students and our marine sciences program Aquarius offers fantastic new possibilities and is a
natural fit for the work we are doing in the Keys and throughout the world." FIU biology
professor Jim Fourqurean is the director of the Marine Education and Research Initiative for the Florida Keys in SEAS, and he will
be overseeing activities at Aquarius Reef Base. The existing Aquarius team will become FIU employees. "Rapid

changes in
the environment that supports the beauty and economy of South Florida make the observation
post of Aquarius even more important," said Fourqurean. "It gives us a unique vantage point to
understand how changing climate, fishing pressure and threats from pollution
and oil and gas exploration and production will impact our coastal environment."
Aquarius provides unparalleled means to study coral reefs and the ocean, test
state-of-the-art undersea technology, train specialized divers, and to engage the
imagination of students and the public across the globe in ocean science, coral
reefs, conservation, and underwater technology . The undersea lab even offers training
opportunities for astronauts headed to space.
Aquarius key to knowledge
Mursuli 13 Member of Marlen Mursuli (09/18/2013, Marlen, The worlds only undersea research lab,
http://news.fiu.edu/2013/09/under-the-atlantic-aquarius-reef-base-offers-a-window-on-the-ocean-and-space/67521)//spark

The special diving capability of Aquarius, called saturation diving, allows scientists to work
underwater up to nine hours a day without fear of getting the bends , compared to
one hour if they were diving from the surface. Increased research time is the key element that enhances scientific
productivity beneath the sea. Aquarius is also used by NASA to train astronauts and develop engineering
concepts, since the undersea environment is similar to conditions in space . Our team has
worked very hard over the past year to save Aquarius because we know the great work that
has been done here, and we believe in the reef bases potential as a source of new
scientific understanding and student discovery , said Kenneth G. Furton, dean of the College of Arts &
Sciences. We have an aggressive business plan in place and will continue to pursue financial
viability through grants, gifts and underwritten missions. The latest NASA mission, which ended last week,
focused on proof-of-concept engineering demonstrations and refining space communication techniques. After many years of
working at Aquarius, we are very happy that FIU has taken over the operations, said Bill Todd,
project lead for NASAs Sea Test and NEEMO projects. All of the staff were very well prepared and allowed us
to complete another successful astronaut training and engineering mission. The teamwork
between NASA and its international partners, the U.S. Navy and FIU on this very
first mission under FIU leadership was exemplary . When not simulating outer space, Aquarius will
be busy helping scientists learn about the oceans. FIU researchers from the School of Environment, Arts and
Society, which runs Aquarius, specialize in ocean acidification, predator/prey
relationships, coral reef health and the overall health of the oceans . They plan to
extend research programs to study issues critical to the sustainability of the worlds oceans .

Plans also call for additional educational programs for K-12 students, as a way to
increase interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) careers.
Aquarius is the BEST place for scientific research
Ho 13 - a passionate aquarist of over 30 years, a coral reef lover, and the blog editor for Advanced Aquarist (Leonard, It's
Official: Aquarius Reef Base still in business, 1/15/13, http://www.advancedaquarist.com/blog/its-official-aquarius-reef-base-stillin-business) //CW

Aquarius offers tremendous research opportunities, and were ensuring that the investment of
American taxpayers continues to provide critical research results to the country, said Mike Heithaus,
executive director of FIUs School of Environment, Arts and Society (SEAS). For our students and our marine sciences
program Aquarius offers fantastic new possibilities and is a natural fit for the work we are doing
in the Keys and throughout the world. FIU biology professor Jim Fourqurean is the director of the Marine Education and
Research Initiative for the Florida Keys in SEAS, and he will be overseeing activities at Aquarius Reef Base. The existing Aquarius team will become FIU
employees. Rapid

changes in the environment that supports the beauty and economy of

South Florida make the observation post of Aquarius even more important, said
Fourqurean. It gives us a unique vantage point to understand how changing
climate, fishing pressure and threats from pollution and oil and gas exploration
and production will impact our coastal environment. Aquarius provides
unparalleled means to study coral reefs and the ocean, test state-of-the-art
undersea technology, train specialized divers, and to engage the imagination of
students and the public across the globe in ocean science, coral reefs,
conservation, and underwater technology . The undersea lab even offers training
opportunities for astronauts headed to space. Living and working in Aquarius is perhaps the
closest thing on earth to actually being in space, said William L. Todd, program manager for Exploration Analogs at NASAs
Johnson Space Center. Todd commanded the first-ever NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) at Aquarius in 2001. NEEMO
is a joint NASA-NOAA program to study human survival in the underwater laboratory in
preparation for future space exploration. Aquarius allows our astronauts to conduct unique
undersea missions that closely resemble the tasks, timelines, operations and even spacewalks
that will be conducted on long duration space missions, Todd said.
Aquarius is the ONLY place we should look to for ocean research without it, the
sector will collapse
McGrew 12 editor for Mission Blue (Mera, From 60 Feet Below the Waves to the Nation's Capital, 8/6/12,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mera-mcgrew/aquarius-_b_1747338.html) //CW

"Aquarius is a real national treasure. It is a unique facility, " said U.S. Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart in an
interview with Mission Blue while visiting Aquarius. "What it does for a very small amount of money is frankly very
hard to believe." The director of Aquarius, Tom Potts, said that since 1991, the facility has hosted 117 saturation missions, the majority of which
have been strictly science based. "We are just beginning to be able to connect the dots with the brain power
of hundreds of scientists and hundreds of experiments, that together show a picture that is
unprecedented," explained renowned oceanographer, Mission Blue founder and National
Geographic explorer-in-residence Dr. Sylvia Earle. " There is nothing like it in the world.
To stop the continuity of more than 20 years of research and knowledge would
really be tragic." Over the years Aquarius has helped support the long-term
monitoring of the rich coral reefs that surround it, but that is just the start. From
Aquarius, ocean professionals have also tested deep-sea technologies and it's even acted as a training facility for Astronauts. In an interview, Bill Todd,
who has directed 16 NASA Extreme Environment Mission Projects (NEMO) from Aquarius, said, " if

this goes away, we do not

have another place to turn." Dr. Earle seemed to sum it up well when she told the congressional delegation that the closure of
Aquarius is unfathomable. "What is really troublesome is that this [the termination of the Aquarius
program] is an indication of neglect for the ocean ," warned Dr. Earle.

ocean science impact

Ocean science solves declining leadership
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative 12 (U.S. Ocean policy report card 2012, why is funding for ocean science,
management, and education important? http://www.jointoceancommission.org/resource-center/2-Report-Cards/2012-0606_2012_JOCI_report_card.pdf//cc)

During these difficult budgetary times, it is important to identify and maximize government
efficiencies and ensure that public money is spent wisely on all activities, including ocean and coastal
management, science, and education. Over the long term, implementation of the National Ocean Policy will make
decision making more effective and lead to efficiencies in the use of agency resources. Agencies are currently transitioning to a new
way of doing business that is grounded in collaboration, coordination, and leveraging of resources. As with any major transition, in
the short term, establishing

new processes and forums for interagency coordination will require some
investment. Allowing a delay in achieving management efficiencies would be counterproductive at a time when long-term
budget deficits are dominating the attention of our nation and its leaders. Strong ocean science and management
programs provide important products and services to our nation that, if severely degraded, would
place our economy, human health and safety, and quality of life at risk. Industries and other
stakeholders rely on these programs for the information they need to make day-to-day decisions about their operations
and to manage important living marine resources, such as fisheries, that provide jobs and are
important to our food security, health, and cultural heritage. Programs that seek to understand and measure
coastal and ocean processes help governments, communities, and individuals make informed decisions about an environment that
should be sustained to ensure future prosperity. Maintaining

a commitment to ocean science, management,

and education is critical to preventing erosion of our nations leadership position on a wide
range of global ocean issues, including political, environmental, jurisdictional, scientific, and
economic concerns. Unfortunately, ocean management, science, and education programs have
been chronically underfunded. This jeopardizes our capacity to understand, manage, and
address existing and emerging needs, such as evaluating ocean energy and transportation
priorities, strengthening fisheries science, responding to global changes, and providing
assistance to regional, state, and local decision makers in their important efforts to address
regional ocean challenges.

stem adv

uqstem declining now

STEM collapsing now inspiring students is key
Beard 13 (Katherine Beard, Masters in Social Sciences from BYU, writer for US News, Behind America's Decline in Math,
Science and Technology, 11/13/13 http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/13/behind-americas-decline-in-math-scienceand-technology)

America has fallen far from its place as a leader in math and science, experts said during a
Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) Diversity Symposium on Capitol Hill on
Wednesday. "International comparisons place the U.S. in the middle of the pack globally," said Debbie
Myers, general manager of Discovery Communications. Myers said in order for the U.S. to compete in the global market, we need
to a do a better job of inspiring children to develop that desire for discovery and encourage minorities
and girls especially to get involved in STEM. For both students and up-and-coming professionals, tests and studies continue to
confirm that the U.S. is losing its competitive edge when it comes to math, technology and science.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which surveyed more than 150,000 people age 16 to 65
in 24 different countries, America's results for literacy were disappointing, but mathematics

and problem solving

proved to be especially embarrassing for a nation that has formerly reigned as a leader of
innovation and technology. The U.S. ranked 21 out of 23 countries in math and 17 out of 19
countries in problem solving in the October study. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reports that the majority of graduate
students studying science and technology at American universities are not Americans, but Chinese and South Koreans. Edie Fraser,
director of STEMconnector.org, indicated at the symposium that the future of jobs lie in the fields of math and science, making it all
the more urgent for younger generations to embrace these subjects. Because of a lack of qualified workers, "2.5 million STEM jobs
aren't being filled," Fraser said. Computer sciences will be espeically important in the future, she added. "Seventy-one percent of

the country's
need to cultivate capable and brilliant minds, not just to create a better tomorrow, but to survive
tomorrow. [READ: Intel Foundation Changing Attitudes is Key in STEM Education] But the question remains: How does the
new jobs are going to be computer related in every field," she said. Speakers at the symposium were clear about

nation go about creating these innovators and geniuses that are passionate about math and science? Grant Imahara, Discovery
Channel's "Myth Busters" personality and a USC engineering graduate, believes the answer to that question is: rock stars. "We need
rock stars. In the 60s astronauts were rock stars," Imahara said. "Everyone wanted to be an astronaut." Imahara said that by

bringing back the esteem and awe of the scientific community and scientific discoveries, kids
will develop a passion and desire to learn more about these subjects. He also said that it was important to
narrow the disconnect between the learning process and the ultimate possibilities of careers paths people can have once they finish
school. "What you need to have is that link between your education and what you do. Make creativity part of the subject," Imahara
continued.

aquarius key
Aquarius is critical to STEM education
Heithaus 13Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences at FIU (Michael, Statement of Dr. Michael
Heithaus Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee Hearing June 13, 2013 Aquarius Reef Base and Partnerships in
Ocean Observations, http://government.fiu.edu/federal/dc-dispatches/current/Statement-of-Dr-Michael-Heithaus.html//cc)

STEM education : inspiring the next generation Because of its ability to capture the
imagination of an entire country and world through the eyes of people living under the sea, Aquarius can play
an important role in ensuring American competitiveness for generations to come.
Equipped with the ability to send live video from the habitat and surrounding waters to schools,
universities, aquariums, and museums around the country, Aquarius can reach millions of students
and citizens every year while actual scientific and training missions are underway . They can
watch science while it is happening and experience it through the eyes of scientists, students, and teachers living and
working underwater! They can even interact with the aquanauts! Watching people living and exploring the ocean
captivates and inspires people, especially young students, in ways that remote sensing cannot .
The personal connection to ocean exploration, coupled with high-quality curriculum, will inspire
a generation of students and motivate understanding, achievement and career choices.
Aquarius is key to scientific innovation and STEM
Mursuli 13 (Marlen Mursuli, writer for FIU News, The worlds only undersea research lab
http://news.fiu.edu/2013/09/under-the-atlantic-aquarius-reef-base-offers-a-window-on-the-ocean-and-space/67521 09/18/13) SA

Aquarius, deployed in 1993 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was slated for
decommissioning this year, when FIU stepped forward with a plan to keep the reef base operational. The special
diving capability of Aquarius, called saturation diving, allows scientists to work underwater up to nine
hours a day without fear of getting the bends, compared to one hour if they were diving from the surface.
Increased research time is the key element that enhances scientific productivity beneath the sea.
Aquarius is also used by NASA to train astronauts and develop engineering concepts , since the
undersea environment is similar to conditions in space. Jim Fourqurean, Aileen Soto and Christian Lopes pose under the wet porch
of Aquarius. Jim Fourqurean, Aileen Soto and Christian Lopes pose under the wet porch of Aquarius. Our team has worked very
hard over the past year to save Aquarius because we know the great work that has been done here, and we

believe in the reef

bases potential as a source of new scientific understanding and student discovery , said
Kenneth G. Furton, dean of the College of Arts & Sciences. We have an aggressive business plan in place and will continue to pursue
financial viability through grants, gifts and underwritten missions. The

latest NASA mission, which ended last

week, focused on proof-of-concept engineering demonstrations and refining space
communication techniques. After many years of working at Aquarius, we are very happy that FIU has taken over the
operations, said Bill Todd, project lead for NASAs Sea Test and NEEMO projects. All of the staff were very well prepared and
allowed us to complete another successful astronaut training and engineering mission. The teamwork between NASA and its
international partners, the U.S. Navy and FIU on this very first mission under FIU leadership was exemplary. When not simulating
outer space, Aquarius will be busy helping scientists learn about the oceans . FIU researchers from the School
of Environment, Arts and Society, which runs Aquarius, specialize in ocean acidification, predator/prey relationships, coral reef
health and the overall health of the oceans. They

plan to extend research programs to study issues critical to

the sustainability of the worlds oceans. Plans also call for additional educational programs for K12 students, as a way to increase interest in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM)
careers .
Key to science leadership and policymaking
Potts 12 (Thomas Potts, Program Director at UNC Wilmington, Professor of Environmental Studies, PhD, Save Aquarius Reef
Base 11/16/12 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-aquarius-reef-base) SA

People once dreamed of living under the sea. Today, we are not only doing it, but also using
undersea living as an extraordinary tool to conduct cutting-edge coral reef research, test

innovative undersea equipment and tele-robotic surgical instruments, train the next generation
of astronauts and sailors, and to inspire future generations of scientists, educators and
leaders . Through the extended bottom time provided by Aquarius, the precious gift of time, marine scientists have
begun to find the answers to many questions facing policy makers and managers responsible for
the wise use of our national resources. Results address the use of marine reserves as a management tool to conserve
coral reef fisheries, understanding coral feeding biology and reproduction, figuring out the impacts of elevated seawater temperature
on coral biology and so much more. Unfortunately the

Presidents 2013 budget proposal includes the

termination of the National Undersea Research Program (NURP), which includes Aquarius. Aquarius' Annual
Operating Budget is $3M.

Only Aquarius has the ability to inspire science leadership

Potts 12 (Thomas Potts, Program Director at UNC Wilmington, Professor of Environmental Studies, PhD, Save Aquarius Reef
Base 11/16/12 https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-aquarius-reef-base) SA

Why Aquarius is Important Examples of recent scientific studies conducted using Aquarius: A team of scientists
discovered that internal waves bring as much as 20-40 times more nitrogen and phosphorus to the upper Florida Keys outer reef
tract than estimates of nutrient pollution from sewage and storm water runoff. Collaborative research on coral reefs revealed
surprisingly high pumping rates and rates of nitrogen exchange in reef sponges. A denitrifying effect of some sponges, which may
counteract other sponge nitrification to help maintain the health of a reef system, has also been identified. Coral restoration and
resilience experiments have been conducted since 2007 to increase understanding of the factors that affect the survival of coral
transplants as a way to begin restore damaged reefs. Experiments to determine how herbivore diversity may be most productively
managed to restore damaged reefs to desired states of health and ecosystem function. Scientsits have begun to zero in on the
causes of ocean acidification, which is contributing to the degradation of coral reefs. Of particular interest: whether some
acidification might be caused by respiration of bottom-dwelling creatures like sponges, or whether most can be attributed to carbon
emissions from an industrialized world. Besides

accomplishing their intended goals, scientists are able to

see and experience the unexpected, at any time of day or night, and new revelations await like the discovery of a
marine plant or animal that could produce the next wonder drug. Operational since 1993, Aquarius has given scientists
prolonged access to the seabed, a unique opportunity to observer the oceanic ecosystem
consistently and over time. Located within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, these studies are particularly
appropriate and have direct management impacts. The Aquarius gives scientist and divers extended presence in a real underwater
environment that is not available through traditional scuba diving or shore- based testing facilities. For testing and evaluation of
underwater equipment, this provides unprecedented ability to install, trouble shoot, and monitor the performance of undersea
equipment. This capability is applies to development and testing of cutting edge technologies that are needed in ocean observing,
forecasting and modeling; and reef monitoring and restoration; as well as extreme environment and telepresence testing for remote
exploration and medical procedures. The similarities between living in space and undersea provide a unique means for NASA to
prepare for extreme environments. Aquarius provides NASA with an analog training environment that simulates both the
International Space Station (ISS) and moon/Mars exploration missions with realism not available in other analog environments.
Recently, NASA utilized Aquarius to begin addressing threats to planet Earth from potential impacts of Near Earth Asteroids.
Catastrophic asteroid impacts have happened before -- and they will happen again. NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations
(NEEMO) used the Aquarius undersea laboratory to test innovative solutions to engineering challenges that will be faced by a
potential manned mission to an asteroid. Additionally, The undersea habitat provides an optimum environment for the crew to
practice extravehicular activity preparation and maneuvers. The isolation and constrained aquanaut quarters, the harsh
environment and reduced gravity presents challenges similar to those that will be encountered during a deep space mission. NASA
has also used Aquarius to better understand the rigors of space life on the human body: Studies of how the pressurized
environment affects sleep and the bodys immune system, the growth of bacteria in the habitat, the use of wireless medical
monitoring equipment and nutrition-related studies. Testing of an In-suit Doppler to look for nitrogen bubbles in the blood
stream, which could provide an early warning of possible decompression sickness. Use of innovative telerobotic technology to test
remote surgery procedures on a mock patient; with simulated lunar and martian delays. Additionally, a partnership between
Aquarius and the US Navy provides in-water saturation diving training; a capability that the Navy no longer supported. But

what

cannot be underestimated is the impact that Aquarius has capturing public attention and
inspiring the next generation of leaders. Aquarius provides unique resources to reach out
to the public in a way that is unmatched by other platforms or technologies. Live telepresence capabilities excite and
engage students and the public in learning about the ocean, science, exploration, and undersea technology. Aquarius has the
power to captivate, inspire and fuel the passion of tomorrows leaders so desperately
needed to face the challenges confronting this coral reefs and the oceans in general.

Aquarius is key to science education

CBS 13 (Local CBS Miami, FIU To Take Over Undersea Lab Off Florida Keys, 01/15/13,
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/15/fiu-to-take-over-undersea-lab-off-florida-keys/) SA

Aquarius Reef Base, the worlds only operational underwater research center, will now by
operated by Florida International University. FIU has received a grant to continue maintenance and monitoring of the facility
for NOAA in 2013. The grant will enable FIU to develop a new business model to fund operations at the
Aquarius Reef Base which is located on the ocean floor, three miles off Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary .
Aquarius was a government-funded underwater research lab until the Obama administration
cut its funding last year. Without private funding, Aquarius was scheduled to shut down at the end of December. FIUs
new business model is expected to include research and education activities supported by
federal, state and local government funding, as well as fees for services from science and engineering teams which use the
facility. Donations from private benefactors also will be key to ensuring the future of Aquarius. FIU biology professor Jim
Fourqurean is the director of the Marine Education and Research Initiative for the Florida Keys in SEAS, and he will be overseeing
activities at Aquarius Reef Base. The existing Aquarius team will become FIU employees. Rapid changes in the environment that
supports the beauty and economy of South Florida make the observation post of Aquarius even more important, said Fourqurean.
It gives us a unique vantage point to understand how changing climate, fishing pressure and threats from pollution and oil and gas
exploration and production will impact our coastal environment. Aquarius

provides unparalleled means to study

coral reefs and the ocean, test state-of-the-art undersea technology, train specialized divers, and
to engage the imagination of students and the public across the globe in ocean science, coral
reefs, conservation, and underwater technology. The undersea lab even offers training
opportunities for astronauts headed to space.

ocean research key

Ocean exploration and scientific knowledge incentivizes STEM education
Beattie and Schubel 13Presidents of Aquariums (ted a. beattie President, Shedd Aquarium Jerry r. Schubel
President, Aquarium of the Pacific On the Importance of a national program of ocean exploration to education
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf//cc)

In the current competitive global economy, the United States faces a distinct disadvantage. Only 16
percent of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in STEM
careers. And among those who do pursue college degrees in STEM fields, only half choose to work in a STEMrelated career. The benefits of STEM education are clear. By 2018, the U.S. anticipates more than 1.2 million
job openings in STEM-related occupations, including fields as diverse as science, medicine, software development,
and engineering. STEM workers, on average, earn 26 percent more than their non-STEM counterparts, and
experience lower unemployment rates than those in other fields. In addition, healthy STEM industries are
critical to maintaining a quality of life in the United States. A national program of ocean and Great Lakes
exploration provides myriad ways to capture public imagination and curiosity to support
sustained involvement and more intense exposure not only to STEM topics, but also the humanities and arts.
New less expensive tools, such as small ROVs, remote sensing stations, and underwater cameras, enable everyone to participate in
ocean and freshwater exploration as citizen scientists. These types of public

engagements around exploration, such as

a glimpse into the true nature of
science: not merely as a bundle of textbook facts, but a dynamic enterprise of investigation that is constantly
changing as our understanding evolves. The effectiveness of STEM-focused programs are
evident; studies have shown not only that young people enjoy inquiry-based STEM activities in and out of school settings, but also
through the NOAA kiosks stationed in Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers, provide

that sustained involvement and more intense expo sure to STEM topics increase youth interest and confidence in their scientific

ocean and Great Lakes observation, we provide people of all ages with
opportunities to explore their natural aquatic environments, and to fall in love with the magic and mystery of
abilities. By engaging the public with
scientific exploration.

stem key to environmental protection

STEM education facilitates sustainability and solves environmental impacts
Pitt 8 Senior Research Fellow @ Department of Educational Studies @ University of York,
consultant for STEM ed for sustainability @ British Council, Design Council, Nuffield
Curriculum Projects, Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, Practical Action, and National
STEM Centre (James Pitt, 2008, Blurring the Boundaries STEM Education and Education
for Sustainable Development,
https://jil.lboro.ac.uk/ojs/index.php/DATE/article/view/201/176)
Introduction This paper is based on the premise that using the context of sustainability within

STEM

teachers to

within schools. Focusing on the

plan creative interactions and

engage in critical discourse

projects will

enable

secondary curriculum in England, the paper discusses the theoretical framework for sustainable development, education for
sustainable development (ESD), initiatives for ESD and the development of STEM which is both problematic and contested. It then
introduces other recent curriculum initiatives such as the concept of personal, learning and thinking skills (PLTS), the extended
schools agenda, the new National Curriculum for pupils aged 11-14 and diplomas for pupils aged 14-19 years, which it argues can
provide a framework for both the ESD and PLTS agendas. It concludes that fitting

the jigsaw together will help

break down barriers and introduce into the curriculum a willingness to encourage controversy
and debate. The 21st Century educational context Many of the certainties of the 20th Century are no more. Todays teachers and
educational policy makers grew up in a culture characterised by assumptions

of unlimited growth, the long-term

availability of natural resources (especially of fossil fuels) and a nave assumption that the planet has a carrying capacity
that more or less allowed humanity to develop in whatever way it saw fit. These assumptions are now widely
challenged

(see for example Simmons, 2000 and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), (2008). WWF report that

humanitys ecological footprint only exceeded the planets biocapacity as recently as 1986, since when we have been living beyond
our means with an inexorable upward trend. Pointing out how demands on the planets resources now exceed the planets
regenerative capacity by more than 30% they warn that the global overshoot is growing. The result of this is that ecosystems

are being run down and that waste is accumulating in the air, on land and in water. We are faced with
deforestation, decreasing biodiversity and climate change that are putting the well-being and development of
all nations at increasing risk (WWF, 2008:2). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now says with very high
confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming (IPCC, 2007:6). This
report continues: Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a
result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands
of years. (ibid: 6) At the same time
mathematics

have given us

advances in the STEM domains

both

of science, technology, engineering and

the capacity for causing such degradation, the tools for

identifying it and understanding it s causes, and

hopefully for

informing

genuinely

intelligent design decisions in the future. This increased understanding of the anthropogenic
causes of climate change, the limitations of peak oil and more recently the global economic crisis all challenge the
common-sense wisdom that we can safely do what we want . The search is now on for development
or change that is truly sustainable .

stem key to aerospace

STEM education is key to the aerospace industryspills over into all technological
sectors
Barber, 10/12/12staff writer at Dayton (Barrie, "Initiative to help solve unfilled jobs in
aerospace industry", Dayton Daily News, www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/initiative-tohelp-solve-unfilled-jobs-in-aerospac/nSb9P/)
An initiative announced Friday aims to solve an ironic problem with Ohios economy in

spite of high unemployment

rates there are more than 10,000 unfilled jobs in the states aerospace industry. Wright State
University will be home to the Aerospace Professional Development Center, a first-of-its-kind outreach initiative in Ohio to train,
educate and attract skilled workers into the ranks of the aerospace industry, officials said Friday. Ohio has more than 10,700 unfilled
jobs in the aerospace and defense-related industries, according to state Sen. Chris Widener, R-Springfield. The Aerospace
Professional Development Center will close that gap, Wright State University President David R. Hopkins said at a press conference
Friday that unveiled the initiative. The university will spend $8 million in state funding on the initiative gained through casino
license fees. The focus on jobs arrives at a time when other states, particularly Georgia and Alabama, have competed aggressively to
attract aerospace work from Ohio, Widener said. Our claim today is you better step up because you cant have our aerospace
industry jobs, he said. The

aerospace and defense sector counts 100,000 workers and 1,200

companies in Ohio alone, officials said. Aerospace firms face an aging workforce with one
estimate that about half of the employees at the top 20 firms nationwide will be eligible for
retirement by 2016, according to an Aerospace Industries Association official. At the same time, economic development
leaders have pinned their hopes on the Miami Valley becoming a leader in the burgeoning unmanned aerial vehicle industry. With
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base at the epicenter, the region has pursued UAV research and development, acquisition and
manufacturing while it competes to land one of six sites across the nation to test integration of remotely piloted drones into manned
civilian airspace by 2015. The Federal Aviation Administration is expected to announce those sites by the end of the year. The jobs
center will open Nov. 1 at the Wright State Research Institutes new location, 4035 Colonel Glenn Highway. A Web site portal for job
seekers, students and employers is already online at www.ohioaerospacecareers.org. Were trying to get this running very quickly,
said S. Narayanan, dean of the College of Engineering and Computer Science at Wright State. At Wright-Patterson, home to 29,000
civilian and military employees, the Air Force Research Laboratories alone typically need 100 new researchers and scientists a year,
said Daryl Mayer, base spokesman. Just keeping our pipeline filled with trained employees is a challenge,said Morley Stone, chief

The first-of-its-kind aerospace jobs and education

center will serve as a model for other industries in the state, from health care to advanced
manufacturing, Hopkins said. The focus on aerospace jobs is meant to match employers with
qualified employees. But its also more: The Wright State initiative will work with state colleges and
universities to align curriculum with the aerospace industrys needs, said Wright State spokeswoman
Stephanie Gottschlich. The center will help current aerospace workers, college students and recent
graduates and workers from other fields obtain education and professional certifications,
internships and jobs. A new STEM Leadership Institute at the center hopes to spark interest
in science, technology, engineering and math careers in students in the sixth grade or higher. The
scientist at the 711th Human Performance Wing.

institute will work with the Southwestern Ohio Council for Higher Education, the Dayton Regional STEM School and the Air Force
Research Laboratory Discovery Lab. A

STEM Leap Ahead program will give high school students

internship and job experience and a chance to compete for money to attend Wright State. Its
critical to have a pipeline of students, said Dennis J. Andersh, a senior vice president with defense contractor SAIC in Beavercreek.
This is not something that will be solved overnight. Klaus Dannenberg, deputy executive director of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics in Reston, Va., said the Wright State center has potential and could prove most beneficial to bring
workers into aerospace who want to transition from other career fields. If thats one of the things that theyre trying to do that

Engineering and
technology fields face a retention issue among younger engineers and scientists , he

would be a phenomenally invaluable role to play that I think is generally missing, he said.

added. Many choose to leave the field after five years or so, often because of the slow pace of projects. But its not uncommon for
them to want to return years later, he said. Targeting

STEM education outreach has potential to

expand the workforce of commercial aviation employees , he said. Boeing and Airbus are
backlogged with years of aircraft orders. Richard L. Aboulafia, a Teal Group defense analyst in Fairfax, Va., said the aging ranks of

aerospace workers require a way to reach the next generation of skilled employees. Education is one place that government can
contribute, he said. It really can help.

STEM education is key to reinvigorate the aerospace industry and militaryit

incentivizes and inspires a new workforce generation
U.S.News 6/20/12American news magazine published from Washington, D.C. since 1933
("Why STEM Matters: Brian Kelly Interviews Aerospace Industries Association", US News
STEM Solutions, usnewsstemsolutions.com/community_news/co-chair-highlight-aerospaceindustries-association)
the aerospace and defense industry is
uniquely affected by American students waning interest and disappointing performance
in STEM subjects . Many positions in our companies can only be filled by U.S. citizens because they require security
clearances. Corporations cannot outsource those jobs or fill them with foreign nationals, so we must ensure that
American students are well prepared for the STEM workforce upon which our nations security
depends. The issue is particularly pressing with 17 percent of our workforce eligible to retire today and more than 30 percent
eligible by 2016. 2. What is your organization doing about it? For decades, aerospace companies have supported
STEM education and workforce preparation with funding, scholarships, internships, and volunteers. We estimate
1. Why does STEM matter to your organization? Among all industries,

our collective contributions to exceed $160 million annually. Since 2006, AIA member companies have been working together to

by
collaborating within our industry and in partnership with other industries, government, academia and the
philanthropic community, all can participate in a systemic approach that promotes real change. AIA
address STEM workforce issues strategically for more impact and stronger results. No one company can do everything, but

spearheaded the formation of the Business and Industry STEM Education Coalition to drive such collaboration at the federal, state
and local levels. (see www.SETforJOBS.org) 3. Has your organization been successful at reaching its STEM goals? (Please feel free to
point to specific programs.) The

STEM workforce is a multi-faceted, long-term challenge for our

industry and the nation. While there is lots of work remaining, signs of progress are evident. The level of
awareness and engagement are growing around the country: best practices in STEM education and ways to
get involved effectively are becoming publicized. AIAs signature STEM program, the Team America Rocketry Challenge, is
proving effective in attracting students to STEM courses and careers in aerospace
and related fields. These encouraging indicators signify that strategic, sustained effort can yield the results we seek. 4. If you
could have three wishes granted by the STEM genie, what would they be? That our country allocates more funding for cutting edge
R&D and innovative production programs to retain the nations leadership in technologies and STEM workforce. That more young
people who enter college with an interest in a STEM major persist to achieve a degree in a STEM subject especially, engineering.
That we identify and support ways of stimulating, nurturing and sustaining the natural curiosity about and interest in STEM that all
young children demonstrate. 5. Beyond your organization, what one thing should be done now to help solve the STEM crisis?

Leaders and role models in every walk of life should take on the responsibility to inspire and
encourage young people to excel in education and particularly in science and math. Every STEM-capable adult
should mentor young people, and community leaders should communicate to the public the importance of
STEM education and workforce preparation for our national well-being, as well as personal
success.

stem key to economy / competitiveness

STEM is key to reviving the economyempirics and broad studies prove
Adkins, 6/14/13--Signal business editor (Jana, "STEM jobs can boost economy", signalSCV,
www.signalscv.com/archives/98460/)/
A research firm study finds that STEM

jobs in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math which drive
economic growth are largely available to workers without a four-year college degree. As of

2011, the non-profit Brookings Institute in Washington D.C. found that half of all STEM jobs are open to workers without college
degrees and that, on average, these jobs paid $53,000 annually. Of the $4.3 billion spent annually by the federal government on
STEM education and training, however, the study reported that only one-fifth goes towards supporting sub-bachelors level training,
while twice as much money goes toward bachelor degree required or higher level-STEM jobs. The average earnings are 10 percent
higher than jobs with similar educational requirements. For those jobs requiring a higher level of knowledge, there were 26 million
positions in 2011, representing 20 percent of all jobs, according to the Brookings Institute study. The study also found that

metropolitan areas with more STEM-related jobs perform well economically , driving
job growth, employment rates, wages and exports. Of large metro areas, San Jose and Washington, D.C., have the
most STEM-based economies, Brookings reported but, Baton Rouge, La., Birmingham, Ala, and Wichita, Kan. have among the
largest share of STEM jobs in fields that do not require four-year college degrees. Regions

with more jobs in STEM

fields even those not requiring bachelors degrees help boost innovation measures one-fourth to one-half
as much as bachelors degree STEM workers, the study found. But, community colleges are largely ignored by
National Science Foundation spending where certificate programs or associates degrees can lead to STEM related jobs. Policy
makers and leaders can do more to foster a broader absorption of STEM
knowledge to the U.S workforce and its regional economies, the survey found. One other benefit to
supporting educational programs locally would be the equalization of wages in an area. Since 1980, the U.S. economy has
shifted to the point where as jobs paying very high and very low wages have replaced jobs paying
moderate wages.
STEM key to economic competiveness
McKinney 09 Master of Public Policy candidate in the Trachtenberg School (July 28, 2009, Jessica, K12 Education in
the United States Should We Implement National Standards and Assessments? http://www.policyperspectives.org/article/view/4242/10.4079pp.v16i1.4242)//spark

An effective policy will ensure that students across the United States learn a
rigorous level of content such that their post-graduation workforce contribution
can increase the countrys international academic competitiveness . Given that the United
States persistently lags behind its peers in education, the existing system of state-level educational standards has not produced
successful competition for high school graduates in the international arena. National

standards and uniform

assessments would highlight regional differences in mathematics, science, and reading. Highperforming schools could aid best-practice research on education policies, in much the same
way that best practices improve business management . For example, evaluators could identify particularly
useful instructional or organizational trends in successful schools and school systems. Researchers could then recommend ways
for other educators to replicate the most effective meth- ods. Uniform

assessments would produce robust data

and allow for state and district comparisons and competition that would stimulate higher
achievement, thus resulting in a better-prepared workforce . The status quo allows for some
comparison across states using the NAEP. However, NAEP testing does not include all students in all schools. As such, districts
have little incentive to adopt the content stan- dards on which the NAEP is based. The NAEP

does not provide standards for every grade level, because it affects only fourth, eighth, and some twelfth grade
students. A uniform set of standards and assessments in all NCLB-tested grade levels would
overcome these challenges and provide a more accurate snapshot of student knowledge . Assuming
high-level stan- dards and effective use of data to adjust instruction, this should produce graduates better prepared for the
demands of the workforce. The existing focus on state-level testing permits wide variation in the definition of proficiency. Randi
Weingarten (2009) offers a useful analogy: football fans would hardly tolerate a world in which different football teams had
different definitions for a first down, allowing some to meet the goal after seven yards, while requiring 10 or even 12 yards of other

teams. The

status quo allows some students to pass without meeting sufficiently rigorous
standards, resulting in the weakness of intellectual competition from American students . The
critical issue facing a national policy is standard-setting . Essentially, the question is
whether the national-level standards landed at the proverbial seven-yard requirement or at the
10- or 12-yard mark. National standards and assessments would only be useful if they increased
the over- all level of content instruction by adopting standards consistent with the highest
performing states. Although it is difficult to precisely predict the effectiveness of national standards and assessments, the
policy of uniform national standards and assessments would have several secondary effects that would improve the overall
functionality of the educational system. At present, a teacher wish- ing to move from one state to another must adapt to
significantly different content-area standards. If teachers did not have to learn an idiosyncratic set of state standards in order to
transfer from one region to another, they would be able to relocate and meet educational labor market demands more easily. This

Uniformity of standards might

also create a better market for research and development of educational tools because
researchers developing these tools could market them to school systems across the country, not
just in specific states. Improved curricular tools would provide better learning
opportunities for students, reinforcing challenging concepts and yielding a
higher-quality workforce . National standards and assessments would also allow states and
localities to focus on areas of educational administration apart from developing, approving,
and updating standards (Miller 2008). The emphasis on instruction, administration, and
operations over stan- dards development would focus local school administrators resources on
student outcomes. This could improve student achievement and, by extension,
international competitiveness .
process could reduce reliance on less-qualified teachers in areas with chronic demand.

STEM key to tech innovation

Hoover 10 senior editor at InformationWeek
(1/19/10, J. Nicholas, Government Finds U.S. Slipping In Tech Dominance,
http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/policy/showArticle.jhtml?
articleID=222301424&pgno=1&queryText=&isPrev=)//spark
American dominance in science and engineering continues to decline , a prestigious government advisory
board said in a biennial report card on U.S. science, engineering, and technology released at a White House event on Friday. The

the decline of American

dominance comes largely at the hands of rapidly developing science and
technology capabilities in Asia , especially driven by the rise of China as a world power. "Science and
technology are no longer the province of developed nations ," the report says. "They have, in a sense,
become 'democratized.' Governments of many countries have firmly built S&T aspects into their
development policies as they vie to make their economies more knowledge- and technologyintensive and ensure their competitiveness in a globalizing world ." The report notes that while research and
National Science Board's Science and Engineering Indicators report found that

development spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product has remained relatively steady in the United States in recent
years, Asian spending has seen a significant uptick during the last decade in terms of both percentage of GDP and real spending. For
example, while annual absolute spending growth in the United States over the last decade has averaged about 5 to 6%, growth in
Asia in general has been more like 9 to 10%, reaching 20% in China. These

increases come both from increased

government attention to science and technology in Asia as well as increased overseas research
and development spending by multinational corporations, according to the report. American dominance in
research output also continues to slip. The combined share of published articles in scholarly journals by
Americans and Europeans declined from 69% in 1995 to 59% in 2008, and citations to U.S. articles dropped
by 9% between 1992 and 2007. The National Science Board is a group of 25 Presidential
appointees that advises the President, Congress and the National Science

Foundation on issues related to science, engineering and technology research,

education and development . Members include prominent academics in science, engineering and technology.
Meanwhile, the report found, the developing world continues to close the gap on the United States on science, technology,
engineering and math education. For example, despite

having less than two thirds the population of the

United States, Japan and South Korea combined saw the same number of university graduates
in science and engineering in 2006 as did the United States.

stem key to leadership

STEM key to heg and a strong defenseindustrial base
Carafano 09 Assistant Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies and Senior
Research Fellow for National Security and Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
(2009, James Jay, Improving U.S. Competitiveness with K-12 STEM Education and Training,
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/upload/SR_57.pdf)//spark
Every day, a

new technology is brought to market by the STEM workforce, enabling people around
the world to live longer, better lives. From computer chips to microwaves, from cell phones to antibiotics, access to
technology and technological innovation is what separates the developed world from developing nations . The U.S.
depends on science, technology, engineering, and math to maintain its position
as the world superpower . In todays world, technology begets technology. Multidisciplinary research
is a prerequisite for any nation to maintain, let alone gain, a competitive edge . The
physicist must work with the structural engineer to create alternative energy sources; neither can do it alone. The ocean engineer

Such technologies keep the economy

thriving and protect the country in times of war . Advances in robotics can improve
manufacturing. When a company fails to make progress in materials science, it means a
competitors microchips will be smaller. Falling behind in any technological field has a
detrimental domino effect because every field is dependent on the others . For years,
must work with the nuclear engineer to create world-class submarines.

the U.S.-dominated science and technology fields filed record numbers of patents, which in turn empowered its military and fueled

China has gained ground in electrical engineering and computing,

and India has made enormous strides toward becoming the leader in accounting and financial
services. Ninety-five percent of Fortune 500 CEOs believe that there is a severe shortage of U.S. citizens working in STEM fields.
its economy. But times are changing.

Sixty-eight percent believe that the U.S. is less focused on STEM than other countries. In America, K12 education is compulsory.
Even so, 30 percent of 18- to 22-year-olds do not have a high school diploma. Every year ,

there are 200,000 U.S.

engineering jobs that need to be filled and every year only 60,000 U.S. engineers
graduate leaving more than two-thirds of these STEM positions vacant . While STEM
engineering work can arguably be outsourced to other nations, such as China and India (each of
which graduates600,000 engineers per year), continually sending U.S. work to be performed in other
countries is not a sustainable solution: Over time globalization will directly and negatively
impact Americas industrial economy, national defense, and homeland security. In some parts
of the world, the positive correlation between STEM expertise and economic prosperity has been
recognized with increased investment. India, for example, has recently experienced a600 percent increase in research
and development (R&D) centers. These centers are not only funded by Indian companies but by U.S.
companies as well evidence that U.S. graduates are not meeting domestic business demands in
quantity or in quality. If the U.S. stays on its current trajectory, more and more high-tech, high-paying jobs will be sent
overseas. But the STEM crisis extends far beyond economic prosperity. In an alarming development,
America is rapidly moving toward a future wher eits top defense technologies are invented,
designed, and manufactured in foreign countries, leaving the U.S. vulnerable in times of war. Schools across the
U.S. place more emphasis on extracurricular activities than on STEM education. In many schools, there are multiple
fundraising activities for sport teams but few for science fairs or math competitions. Likewise,
students who excel in sports are considered heroes while students who excel in science are
considered geeks. Detrimental to national competitiveness, low achievement in STEM fields at all levels of
education and beyond is becoming not only culturally acceptable it is becoming the norm. Peace
through superior firepower./ 22

US increase in national STEM education is key to leadershipsolves a laundry list

of impacts
Eberle, 10Executive Director of National Association for State Boards of Education (Francis,
"Why STEM Education Is Important For Everyone", Science Pioneers,
www.sciencepioneers.org/parents/why-stem-is-important-to-everyone)
STEM educationare vital to our
future the future of our country, the future of our region and the future of our children. Besides, STEM is everywhere;
it shapes our everyday experiences. Have you considered how often we experience STEM in our lives?
Science is our natural world sun, moon and starslands and oceansweather, natural disasters, the diversity of nature,
Science, Technology, Engineering and MathematicsSTEM, and therefore,

animals (large, small, microbial)plants and foodthe fuel that heats our homes and powers transportationThe list is almost
endless. In todays world, technology means computers and smartphones, but it goes back to television, radio, microscopes,
telegraph, telescopes, the compass, and even the first wheel. Yes, engineering designs buildings, roads, and bridges, but it also

todays challenges of transportation, global warming and environment-friendly machines,

appliances and systems. We only have to look around to see what improvements to our lives and our homes have been
tackles

engineered in the last decade alone. We encounter mathematics at the grocery store, the bank, on tax forms, in dealing with
investments and the family budget. Every other STEM field depends on mathematics. STEM

is important, because it
pervades every aspect of our lives. Lets consider how STEM effects what is closest and dearest to usour children.
STEM is their futurethe technological age in which they live, their best career options, and their key to wise decisions. In 2009, the
United States Department of Labor listed the ten most wanted employees. Eight of those employees were ones with degrees in the
STEM fields: accounting, computer science, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, information sciences and systems,
computer engineering, civil engineering, and economics and finance. According to the U. S. Department of Commerce, STEM
occupations are growing at 17%, while others are growing at 9.8%. Health care workers with associate degrees to doctors of medicine
will average 20% more in life time earnings than peers with similar degrees in non-health care. A glance at 2010 starting salaries for
engineers with $47,145 for civil engineers to $60,054 for chemical engineers is strong evidence that STEM related jobs can be
financially rewarding careers for our children. Likewise, according to the U. S. Labor Department, the 10 fastest growing
occupations) from 2008-2018, and their median wages are Biomedical engineers, $77,400 Network systems and data
communications analysts, $71,100 Home health aides, $20,460 Personal and home care aides, $19,180 Financial examiners,
$70,930 Medical scientists, except epidemiologists, $72,590 Physician assistants, $81,230 Skin care specialists, $28,730
Biochemists and biophysicists, $82,840 Athletic trainers, $39,640 And, arguably, all of these are STEM careers! Another compelling

STEM careers are truly helping professions that build communities and
transform nations. These professionals are in charge of solving the complex problems of todays world and its future. They
are working to find solutions for global warming, cancer, third world hunger,
disappearing habitats, and an interdependent world economy. Yesterdays stereotype of the
argument is that

geek in a lab coat is not representative of todays STEM teams, where economists work with researchers on technical transfer and
engineers build the state-of-the-art equipment for businesses working with cutting-edge technologies. STEM careers are both
challenging and fun people in them enjoy going to work every day. For our region, investing in the future of science, technology,
engineering and mathematics makes sense for local large technology firms like Cerner, Garmin, and Sprint, the center of the Animal
Health Corridor, five international engineering firms, and a large life sciences industry. The Kansas City regions challenge in
recruiting new STEM professionals is daunting, in the face of competing with known areas like the Silicon Valley or the Research
Triangle. Local firms are finding it difficult to recruit the STEM professionals they need to continue to be successful in todays everchanging business environment. Yet, STEM careers are clearly what fuels the regional economy. According to
Georgetowns Center on Education and the Workforce, Kansas and Missouri will need 185,000 additional people completing postsecondary degrees by 2018. From community colleges, to technical universities like DeVry, to state institutions like UMKC, the
University of Kansas, K-State Olathe, and private colleges like Rockhurst, William Jewell, Avila and others, the region has the
capacity to produce more trained individuals. Introducing our young children and current students to STEM opportunities and

If the
U nited S tates is to maintain its global leadership and competitive position, then we just
have to motivate our most promising students into the STEM fields . Science has been identified as

getting them engaged and excited about seeking advanced schooling in these areas is essential to meet these demands.

a national priority, but science teachers cant do it all on their own. Parents have to become more interested and knowledgeable. A
2008 survey by USA Today showed that only 26% of those surveyed believe that they have a good understanding of science. Fortyfour percent could not identify a living scientist. Our students are not stacking up with other developed countries. In calling for
common standards as early as 2009, Representative George Miller of California, chairman of the House Education and Labor
Committee, made this statement during a hearing We all know the statisticsweve fallen to 21st in math achievement, 25th in
science, and 24th in problem solving. We used to be No. 1 in college completion. Now we are 18th. There is yet another reason why
STEM education is so important. Every election depends on choosing leaders who know how to base decisions on sound economics

and how to evaluate statistics. So many local and state referendums depend on both scientific and economic knowledge. Because

STEM is so important for our children, our region and our country, we need to encourage the
students currently in our educational systems, as well as future generations of students, to understand and
embrace the technology that affects them every day of their lives . Students should be advised on the merits
of taking as many math and science courses in middle and high school as possible. And these courses need to be taught by engaged
and enthusiastic teachers using hands-on and minds-on activities. Making

science and math courses fun and

interesting will not only help students to learn, but might also plant the seed of interest that
could grow into a n exciting and rewarding STEM career.

add-ons

coral reefs solve diseases

Specifically, coral reefs are home to life-saving medicines
Bruckner 13coral reef ecologist in the National Marine Fisheries Services Office of Protected
Resources (Andrew W., Silver Spring, Maryland, Life-Saving Products from Coral Reefs, Issues in Science and Technology,
November 27, 2013, http://issues.org/18-3/p_bruckner/)

Coral reefs are storehouses of genetic resources with vast medicinal potential , but
they must be properly managed. During the past decade, marine biotechnology has been applied to the areas of
public health and human disease, seafood safety, development of new materials and processes,
and marine ecosystem restoration and remediation. Dozens of promising products from marine organisms are
being advanced, including a cancer therapy made from algae and a painkiller taken from the venom in
cone snails. The antiviral drugs Ara-A and AZT and the anticancer agent Ara-C, developed from extracts of sponges found on a
Caribbean reef, were among the earliest modern medicines obtained from coral reefs. Other products, such as Dolostatin 10, isolated
from a

sea hare found in the Indian Ocean, are under clinical trials for use in the treatment of breast
and liver cancers, tumors, and leukemia. Indeed, coral reefs represent an important and as yet
largely untapped source of natural products with enormous potential as
pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, enzymes, pesticides, cosmetics, and
other novel commercial products. The potential importance of coral reefs as a source of life-saving and lifeenhancing products, however, is still not well understood by the public or policymakers. But it is a powerful reason for
bolstering efforts to protect reefs from degradation and overexploitation and for managing them
in sustainable ways. Between 40 and 50 percent of all drugs currently in use, including
many of the anti-tumor and anti-infective agents introduced during the 1980s and 1990s, have
their origins in natural products. Most of these were derived from terrestrial plants, animals, and
microorganisms, but marine biotechnology is rapidly expanding. After all, 80 percent of all life forms on
Earth are present only in the oceans. Unique medicinal properties of coral reef organisms were
recognized by Eastern cultures as early as the 14th century, and some species continue to be in
high demand for traditional medicines. In China, Japan, and Taiwan, tonics and medicines derived from
seahorse extracts are used to treat a wide range of ailments, including sexual disorders,
respiratory and circulatory problems, kidney and liver diseases, throat infections, skin ailments,
and pain. In recent decades, scientists using new methods and techniques have intensified the search for
valuable chemical compounds and genetic material found in wild marine organisms for the
development of new commercial products. Until recently, however, the technology needed to reach
remote and deepwater reefs and to commercially develop marine biotechnology products from organisms occurring in
these environments was largely inadequate. The prospect of finding a new drug in the sea , especially
among coral reef species, may be 300 to 400 times more likely than isolating one from a terrestrial
ecosystem. Although terrestrial organisms exhibit great species diversity, marine organisms have greater
phylogenetic diversity, including several phyla and thousands of species found nowhere else.
Coral reefs are home to sessile plants and fungi similar to those found on land, but coral reefs also contain a diverse
assemblage of invertebrates such as corals, tunicates, molluscs, bryozoans, sponges, and
echinoderms that are absent from terrestrial ecosystems. These animals spend most of their time firmly
attached to the reef and cannot escape environmental perturbations, predators, or other stressors. Many engage in a form
of chemical warfare, using bioactive compounds to deter predation, fight disease, and prevent
overgrowth by fouling and competing organisms. In some animals, toxins are also used to catch
their prey. These compounds may be synthesized by the organism or by the endosymbiotic microorganisms that inhabit its
tissues, or they are sequestered from food that they eat. Because of their unique structures or properties, these
compounds may yield life-saving medicines or other important industrial and agricultural products.

Disease = extinction
Casadevall 12 (Arturo, MD and Ph.D from New York University.

The Future of Biological Warfare Microbial

Biotechnology. March 21 2012 Wiley//cc)
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the known existential threats.
At this time this writer can identify at three

major existential threats to humanity: (i) large-scale

thermonuclear war followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid impact and (iii) infectious
disease. To this trio might be added climate change making the planet uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the rst is
deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of nuclear war. For the second there is geological evidence for the association of
asteroid impacts with massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As

to an existential threat from microbes recent

decades have provided unequivocal evidence for the ability of certain pathogens to cause the
extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally not been associated
with extinction this view has changed by the nding that a single chytrid fungus was responsible
for the extinction of numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 2006). Previously, the
view that infectious diseases were not a cause of extinction was predicated on the notion that
many pathogens required their hosts and that some proportion of the host population was
naturally resistant. However, that calculation does not apply to microbes that are acquired directly
from the environment and have no need for a host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens. For
those types of hostmicrobe interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last
member of a species without harm to itself, since it would return to its natural habitat upon
killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of existential threats environmental microbes
could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity than the known pathogenic microbes ,
which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2001), especially if some of these
species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of natural evolution or
bioengineering.

mining
1ac Chappelle evidence says that Aquarius funding facilitates effective missions to
asteroids and trains astronauts to mine resources without hazard
Mining is ballin
Feinman 14JD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law (Matthew, ARTICLE: Mining
the Final Frontier: Keeping Earth's Asteroid Mining Ventures from Becoming the Next Gold Rush Spring, 2014 University of
Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy 14 PGH. J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 202, Lexis//cc)
I. ASTEROID MINING: TECHNOLOGIES AND POTENTIAL REWARDS The first time a

space probe made a fly-by of

an asteroid was in 1991 when the Galileo, on its way to Jupiter, passed within 1,000 miles of the asteroid
Gaspara. n6 Since Galileo's passage of Gaspara, scientists have been studying the properties of
asteroids and their potential benefits to Earth. n7 In the twenty-three years since, researchers have
discovered that asteroids may hold the key to solving the Earth's resource depletion
worries. n8 A. Asteroid Resources May Be Significant Terrestrial supplies of certain resources are
dwindling, and our usage is causing the world to run out of commodity elements . n9 Some estimates
speculate that some of our most valuable resources will be depleted on the short to medium term. n10 As the
supply of Earth's resources is no longer able to meet demands, some scientists have theorized that asteroids may contain
additional resource reserves . n11 [*204] Many 21st century technologies use rare earth metals
found in elements such as iron, gold, and platinum . n12 For example, wind turbines and solar
panels--providers of clean, renewable energy--consume rare earth metals during their
construction, which are currently only available in terrestrial mines . n13 Unfortunately, the demand
for these required metals continues to rise and, as the usage of the metals increase despite
decreasing supplies, the economical extraction of the metals on Earth will continue to become
more difficult. n14 Elements like platinum, gold, and nickel are needed in everyday items
such as batteries, jewelry, and computer chips; n15 but estimates indicate the world does not have
enough of these materials to last even another 100 years. n16 Finding additional stores of these essential
elements is paramount in our quest for new technologies. There are many uses for the resources found on
asteroids, both in the exploration of the solar system and development of technologies on Earth. n17 In space, resources
could be used in a myriad of ways. For example, if water can be found, which is believed to be
existent on some asteroids, it can help sustain an exploratory ship or colony. n18 Using
solar energy, the water found could also be broken down into its hydrogen and oxygen components, which
can then be used to form the basic building blocks of rocket fuel. n19 Eventually, companies and
governments will have the possibility of getting into space with less fuel and will be able to refuel
as they pass the asteroid belt on the way to the edge of the solar system . In the short-term, this spacemade fuel can be used to extend satellite life and fuel additional mining ventures. [*205] In addition
to extending satellites' life span while in space, we need remedies for energy problems here on
Earth . It is more than possible for the mining industry to provide a solution in this context.
Estimates state there are roughly one to two million asteroids in the solar system that are a
kilometer in diameter. n20 Each of these asteroids is projected to weigh roughly two billion tons and
"contain 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt, and 7,500 tons of platinum ."
n21 The value of these items, for both private companies and governments around the world
could be significant with the dollar value being somewhere in the trillions or higher . n22 With nickel
selling for $ 14,575 per ton, n23 cobalt selling for $ 26,600 per ton, n24 and platinum at $ 1,454 per ounce, mining one single
asteroid could be more than profitable. n25 The asteroid's resources could easily be used on Earth
for the same purposes as on-planet resources, but without having to extract it from the Earth .
This is important as all three of these elements can be used in fuel-cell technology, as well as in other
new, high-tech devices. n26

ocean viruses (add-on?)

Lack of consensus now new research k2 accurate climate and ecosystem models
Weitz and Wilhelm 12 - * Professor of Theoretical Ecology and Quantitative Biology School of Biology at Georgia Tech,
** Professor of Microbiology at the University of Tennessee (*Joshua S., **Steven W., Ocean viruses and their effects on microbial
communities and biogeochemical cycles, 9/5/12, PMC (free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the
U.S. National Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NIH/NLM)), F1000 Biol Rep. 2012; 4: 17.,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3434959/) //CW

The potential role of viruses in marine biogeochemical cycles [75,76] and the viral shunt [8] has been
discussed for nearly two decades now, yet the quantitative impact viruses have on regional and
global scale processes remains generally unresolved apart from estimates from a few marine
virus production surveys [e.g. 32,38,40,41,77-81]. This uncertainty with respect to quantifying viral effects
manifests itself in two critical ways. First, there are a number of global earth systems and
climate models that integrate geophysical processes with the biology of microbes to metazoans
to predict the dynamics of carbon nutrients and biodiversity [82-84]. However, the smallest biotic agents
on the planet viruses are rarely, if ever, included in such models. Second, the most recent
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its last report in 2007 noting: The overall
reaction of marine biological carbon cycling (including processes such as nutrient cycling as well
as ecosystem changes including the role of bacteria and viruses) to a warm and high-CO2 world
is not yet well understood. Several small feedback mechanisms may add up to a
significant one [85]. The emphasis is ours. The assessment of quantitative effects of viruses on
populations, communities and ecosystems in a form that can be integrated into large-scale
models and climate change scenarios should be a major research goal. There are many challenges to reach this goal.
First, data on the quantitative effects of viruses on ecosystem processes are highly variable, and may reflect differences in collection and estimation methods in addition to

There is a need for increased standardization of methods (e.g. [86]) as well as the
integration of existing data to relate viral interaction and effect data to environmental and
geographic drivers. Second, new methods are being developed to characterize the genomes of
viruses of microbes and the microbes they infect (e.g. [87]). Yet, how much do these details matter? That is, are there particular hostviral interactions, and even particular lineages or ecotypes, that are key to the flux of particular types of organic and inorganic pools ? Multi-scale
mathematical methods can help infer viral effects at large scale based on cellular level
interactions. Finally, there is a growing emphasis on the quantification of genomic and
transcriptomic diversity within ocean microbes. However, predicting ecosystem-level effects of
viruses of microbes requires quantitative estimates of rates and interactions coinciding with
genomic and transcriptomic surveys. We hope that future work on viruses of microbes in the
oceans includes efforts to combine rates, -omics data and mathematical models in the service of
answering a fundamental question: what effects do viruses have on the global earth system?
natural biological variation.

Plan key viruses reproduce in deepwater

Wilhelm and Suttle 99 - * Professor of Microbiology at the University of Tennessee,** Professor of Biological
Oceanography, Marine Microbiology, and Environmental Virology at the University of British Colombia (*Steven W., ** Curtis A.,
Viruses and Nutrient Cycles in the Sea, 1999, BioScience (1999) 49 (10): 781-788. doi: 10.2307/1313569,
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/10/781.full#T2) //CW

The pool of viruses in the ocean is dynamic because viruses in surface waters are rapidly
destroyed or damaged by sunlight as well as other factors (Heldal and Bratbak 1991, Suttle and Chen 1992, Noble and
Fuhrman 1997, Garza and Suttle 1998, Wilhelm et al. 1998). Because viral abundances are relatively constant on a
scale of days to weeks, new viral progeny must be continuously produced to replace viruses that
are destroyed. Although viruses could potentially be introduced from outside sources into the
upper mixed layer (e.g., via upwelling or fluvial input), most viruses in marine surface waters appear
to come from within the system . High production rates of viruses result in significant lysis of host cells. Based on viral decay

rates and electron microscopic analyses, it

appears that an average of 1020% of the heterotrophic bacteria in

marine surface waters and 510% of the cyanobacteria are destroyed daily to maintain the viral
community (Fuhrman and Suttle 1993, Suttle 1994). Similar estimates of viral production have been obtained using radiotracers to monitor the
production of new phage (Steward et al. 1992a, 1992b). Considering that bacterial abundances often reach 109 cells per liter, destruction of
host cells can represent a significant source of organic carbon, nutrients, and trace elements in
the marine microbial food web (Proctor and Fuhrman 1991, Fuhrman and Suttle 1993, Thingstad et al. 1993, Gobler et al. 1997, SimeNgando 1997).

Learning these processes is necessary for effective oceanic policy necessary to

understand the globe
Wilhelm and Suttle 99 - * Professor of Microbiology at the University of Tennessee,** Professor of Biological
Oceanography, Marine Microbiology, and Environmental Virology at the University of British Colombia (*Steven W., ** Curtis A.,
Viruses and Nutrient Cycles in the Sea, 1999, BioScience (1999) 49 (10): 781-788. doi: 10.2307/1313569,
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/10/781.full#T2) //CW
In recent years, emerging

viral pathogens and outbreaks of virulent viral diseases have been at the
forefront of the popular media. There is widespread understanding of the significance of viral
disease to the health of humans, animals, and even plants . Scientists are now beginning to
appreciate that viruses also play critical roles in the structure and function of
aquatic food webs as well as in global carbon and other chemical cycles. In turn, these
cycles ultimately have profound effects on oceanic chemistry and physics . For example,
global changes in the carbon budget of the planet will affect temperature, which will influence ocean circulation. The recent El Nino event and its

viruses,
working at the smallest scales of biology, may affect processes at a community and ecosystem
scale. The biological oceanographers of the future will be tasked with quantifying these
processes and providing estimates of the direct and indirect influences of viruses on global
marine systems. The development of an awareness of these interactions and of technologies to
quantify viral effects in a noninvasive manner will lead to insight on these processes .
Comprehension of the interactions between microbial processes and global
phenomena is in its infancy; however, understanding these relationships is
essential to predict the biosphere's response to and influence on global change.
influence on climate highlight the powerful effects of small changes in the circulation of the ocean. In this article, we have highlighted how

Continued oceanic research k2 find ocean viruses solves a laundry list of impacts
Marathe 13 writer for Yale News and Scientific (the nations oldest college science publication and the premier science
publication at Yale.The Yale Scientific Magazine remains committed to the ideals of scientific journalism: to serve the Yale
community by presenting the scientific, medical, and engineering activities at the University in an honest and unbiased manner.)
(PAYAL, A Whole New World: Scientists discover abundant viruses living under the sea, 12/21/13,
http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/12/a-whole-new-world-scientists-discover-abundant-viruses-living-under-the-sea/)//CW

A single drop of seawater contains nearly ten million viruses. But despite this strength in
numbers, marine viruses have failed for decades to win attention . Scientists believe that
only one percent of all the species of saltwater viruses have been identified to this
day . Recent discoveries in this branch of microbiology are finally shedding light on just how intriguing and powerful these viruses can be. In fact,
there are ten times as many saltwater viruses as there are all other saltwater
microbes combined, and their sheer number makes them an incredibly powerful
ecological force. By controlling bacterial populations, marine viruses determine
how much energy is available for plants and animals in the worlds oceans . They
can also benefit research in agriculture, medicine, and evolution . One significant breakthrough
in the field came in February, when Nature published a study led by Oregon State University microbiologist Stephen Giovannoni. Giovannonis team

identified a new species of marine virus that attacks SAR11 bacteria, the most abundant marine

bacteria worldwide. This discovery might not come across as astonishin g. After all, 99 percent of marine
viruses are still floating around unidentified; ecologists who sift through saltwater are likely to find something new eventually. And yet these new

The new
viruses, dubbed pelagiphages, play a critical role in the ecology of marine ecosystems, making
it even more remarkable that they remained hidden from the scientific community for so long.
By regularly attacking and killing SAR11, the pelagiphages prevent the bacterial population from
overrunning an entire ocean ecosystem. Paul Turner, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Yale, explained that
bacteria like SAR11 are extremely efficient at using their resources. Without
marine viruses to kill as much as 50 percent of saltwater bacteria every day,
rampant bacterial growth would quickly deplete the oceans resources . SAR11 also
happens to be a major player in the carbon cycle. The bacteria absorb organic carbon from the
environment in order to produce energy, releasing carbon dioxide in the process. Although each
individual bacterium consumes a small amount of carbon, the entire population uses up a
tremendous amount of the organic carbon molecules dissolved in seawater. Given carbons
essential role as a biological building block it is a component of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates
and nucleic acids it is crucial that plants and animals have access to organic carbon from the
environment. When pelagiphages penetrate and kill the bacteria, this captured
organic carbon becomes available to other plants and animals in the water . The inner
viruses, which Giovannoni has found are the most abundant saltwater viruses in the world, managed to escape discovery for decades.

workings of the pelagiphage resemble those of most other viruses. Technically, the virus is not alive instead, it relies on a host cell to function and
reproduce. It attacks its host, SAR11, by penetrating the bacterial cell and inserting its own viral DNA. Once it has control of the cell, it uses the cells
machinery to make copies of itself. The SAR11 host cell eventually bursts and dies, releasing new copies of virus that are free to scatter and infect new
hosts. More importantly, when SAR11 bursts it releases carbon, among other essential nutrients, into the environment. In addition to uncovering the

Because
of their fast life cycles and quick reproduction, both microbes are able to evolve rapidly, and
according to Turner, they are the champions of adaptive change. With each generation, the
viruses are responding to SAR11s evolutionary advantages with changes of their own;
meanwhile, SAR11 bacteria quickly adapt to any adjustments made by the viruses. This
evolutionary process is extraordinarily rapid. Viruses proceed through an average
of 1.2 generations per day. By contrast, observing evolution in humans is impossible because it takes decades for multiple
generations to elapse. The arms race between SAR11 and its viral predator has been used by scientists to
explain the great diversity of marine microbes. For instance, as SAR11 adapts to the virus,
perhaps by developing a less penetrable nucleus or establishing a counterattack, the single strain
could potentially diverge into multiple species. Luckily, for each new bacterial strain that emerges, there are dozens of viruses
that have yet to be revealed. In July, researchers at the University of Arizona identified twelve new types of bacteria-killing saltwater viruses .
Studies like this convince us that we only know the tip of the iceberg when it
comes to the diversity of viruses in natural environments, said Turner. Several months earlier,
new viruss role in the ecosystem, Giovannonis research highlights an ongoing evolutionary arms race between SAR11 and marine viruses.

researchers at Cornell University added to the growing list of discoveries in marine virology. The team identified a species of saltwater virus that attacks
crustaceans called copepods. These crustaceans feed on photosynthetic phytoplankton, and the pellets they release sink to the ocean floor. But these
pellets are not entirely waste they include large amounts of locked-up organic carbon that came from the phytoplankton. Once again, marine viruses
come to the rescue by controlling copepod populations and maintaining suitable levels of organic carbon in the ecosystem. Given the great variety of
marine viruses, cataloging these species is a tremendous step in revealing the diversity within underwater ecosystems. One

of the
ultimate goals for ecologists is to eventually describe all the creatures on the
planet, said Turner. With such vast quantities of marine viruses, it is impossible
to pursue this goal without exploring and identifying pelagiphages . Of course, most people

outside the field of ecology are not quite so passionate about cataloging every creature on earth, understanding the carbon cycle, or testing evolutionary
theories at high speed .

However, these newly discovered marine viruses have a profound

impact on other aspects of research. For example, studying new viral specimens
gives scientists a better understanding of how viruses can easily penetrate a host
cell and navigate a victims immune system. By studying this process, researchers

can potentially develop better anti-viral treatments to human and animal disease s.
Turner explained that other advantages of marine viruses are less obvious, but just as exciting. We tend to only focus on viruses that make us sick, he
said, but, i f

we look at specific viruses and at the specific genes that make those viruses
successful, we can take advantage of viral functions for our own applications.
According to Turner, recent research has shown that certain plants can grow more
efficiently at high temperatures when infected by a virus . This ability can be harnessed
to support plant growth even as global warming threatens agriculture. As research in marine
viruses accelerates, Turner said he is optimistic about where the field will go. There is still much
work to be done in cataloging the diversity of these saltwater viruses, and along the way
scientists can continue investigating the impact viruses can have on medicine, agriculture and
biodiversity. So much remains to be explored in that single drop of seawater containing ten
million viruses.

funding stuff/solvency

no fed funding now

No fed funding now
Pressley 12 Star News (01 July 2012, Baird, Foundation could save UNCW's Aquarius marine laboratory,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1022974656/5B119D9160DD411EPQ/3?accountid=14667)//spark

The newly formed Aquarius Foundation could be the saving grace for the world's only undersea
laboratory and a key component of the University of North Carolina Wilmington's marine science program. A federal
budget that's holding up in the U.S. Congress doesn't include money for Aquarius ,
the federal undersea research program operated by UNCW. School officials said in May that the center would ultimately
be pulled from its research space in the Florida Keys by 2013 unless funding was found
elsewhere. Enter the Aquarius Foundation. The foundation, which was incorporated last month, is working toward
a nonprofit designation, said executive director Debbie Illes. The goal is to create a place where
individuals, corporations and other operations can help fund Aquarius, Illes said.
Using the foundation as a funding source for the research lab would eliminate the university's
ties to the program, Illes said. But she said the foundation is looking for groups to partner with. " We'll have a
multitude of income sources no matter which business plan we choose ," she said. Regardless of the
foundation's final decision, Illes noted that they'll have to work fast. If federal funding is not replaced, the
capsule would be dismantled by December 2012. "We're looking at raising a sizable sum of
money between now and the end of the year" to keep the research lab running , she said. That sizable
sum, which will fund the lab's operating costs, adds up to anywhere from $1.5 million to $3 million. Funding troubles began when
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which manages

the UNCW-based National

Undersea Research Center, consolidated programs in its ocean exploration program . That eliminated
the undersea research program that included Aquarius, said Bob Wicklund, the school's director of federal programs. When
Aquarius' funding has been threatened in years past, North Carolina's members of Congress have put earmarks in the budget to save
it. But Congress banned those earmarks, making a Congressional intervention out of the question. Illes, a Florida Keys resident, said

she decided to start the foundation not only to support the research lab, but to increase public
awareness of it. "This is something we have here in the Keys, and people don't know and
appreciate the value of this," she said. "I made it a personal mission that the public know more about it."
No federal funding
Wadlow 12 (Kevin Wadlow, Senior Staff Writer Dawning of the age of Aquarius, Florida Keys Keynoter, Lexis Nexis 7/7/12)
SA

A mission named "Celebrating 50 Years Of Living Beneath The Sea" aboard the Aquarius
underwater habitat next week could mark the end of undersea living at the unique Florida Keys
facility. The Aquarius Reef Base, in 60 feet of water at Conch Reef off Tavernier, is the only remaining undersea research habitat
in use anywhere. But it appears federal funding to keep it operating in the ocean's depths is
about to run dry . Sylvia Earle, one of the world's most renowned oceanic scientists, returns to the Aquarius for the
upcoming mission. Earle stayed aboard the Aquarius previously, and in 1970 led the first all-woman team aboard the underwater
Tektite habitat in the Virgin Islands. Mark Patterson, a veteran aquanaut and professor at the College of William & Mary, leads the
July 14-21 mission at Aquarius to study the relationships of sponges and corals on a reef environment that is undergoing profound
change. On a lighter note, the team will attempt to record the Goliath grouper's singular "booming" sound and discover its secret.
Aboard with the Aquarius technical staff from the facility's Key Largo land base for the 12-day mission will be underwater
cinematographer D.J. Roller, who has worked on documentaries for "Nova" and National Geographic, and the 3-D "Ghosts of the
Abyss" about the Titanic shipwreck. No

other missions aboard Aquarius are scheduled for 2012. If no source

of funding is found to replace its annual operating budget of about $2 million annually, the
facility could be dismantled this winter. "People do not want to see the Aquarius go away," said Debra Illes, an Upper Keys
resident leading the new Aquarius Foundation, a fundraising organization. "Among the scientific research community, especially
from those who have visited and stayed aboard the Aquarius, there has been a huge outpouring of concern and support," she said. "I
hear from people every day asking how they can get involved." The Aquarius Foundation holds its first major benefit July 21 at the
History of Diving Museum in Islamorada. Earle has committed to attend, and other underwater notables are expected, as well. The
foundation has incorporated and filed for federal nonprofit status. Cutbacks at the National Undersea Research Center A

congressional budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has yet to be confirmed but reports

indicate
cutbacks in ocean-research money will significantly affect the National Undersea Research
Center, a program at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, which operates Aquarius. NOAA owns the actual habitat, built
in 1986. "I'm a real believer in having a human presence in the ocean to observe the changes at the reef," said Illes, a former
executive director at the History of Diving Museum. "It's

doing science that leads to new discoveries and new

realizations about what is happening to our planet." Teams of researchers who stay at the Aquarius for up to two
weeks can spend long hours diving along the reef edge without being afflicted with decompression sickness. When it is time for a
mission to end, the team stays in the 43-foot-long habitat to undergo decompression over an 18-hour period before surfacing. "Being
able to study the animals and plants in their home using an underwater habitat gives me the gift of time," Earle said in a mission
summary. "Time to see what these magnificent life forms are actually doing on the reef."

fed funding keyaquarius

Federal funding is critical to AquariusFIU is unsustainable (also could be 1ac
level)
FIU 14 (Florida International University, leader of ocean research and current operator of the Aquarius Research Base, Federal
Priorities, 03/04/14 http://government.fiu.edu/_assets/docs/aquarius-2-pager.pdf ) SA

Aquarius Reef Base (ARB) in Key Largo, Florida, is a unique underwater ocean science and diving facility
deployed on the barrier reef within the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). This facility
allows extended underwater manned science and training missions by providing safe living and working support at the higher
pressures of the underwater environment. No other such facility exists in the world. FIU

recently received
authorization from NOAA to manage operations and maintenance of the facility. The grant
agreement guarantees continued funding for the ARB for the first six months of FY 2013 .
FIU plans to transition to operating the Aquarius Reef Base under a new business model that
will support the operations of the facility with a combination of funding from federal
agencies (including NOAA), educational programs, private sector contracts and philanthropic donations. NOAAs
National Undersea Research Program, including Aquarius, was not included in the
presidents fiscal 2013 proposal; however, NOAA recognizes that the Aquarius Reef Base is a unique and valuable asset
to the scientific community. State and Local Impact The Aquarius Reef Base advances FIUs vision for the entire Florida Keys by
allowing researchers to better understand the South Florida marine environment and the critical habitat of the coral reefs of the
National Marine Sanctuary of the Florida Keys. The continuation of operations at the ARB will create research opportunities not
only for FIU, but for other university partners in marine science research. Research conducted at the facility contributes greatly to
our knowledge of the functioning of coral reef ecosystems in general, and the FKNMS in particular. This knowledge is proving vital
for predicting the response of these systems to environmental change and for managing the important assets of the FKNMS.

Aquarius is the only undersea laboratory that has been monitoring one of the great marine
disasters in history the rapid decline of the coral reef ecosystem. National Signicance ARB consists of the
Aquarius underwater laboratory and habitat, anchored to the bottom on the barrier reef, as well as vessels and shore-based facilities
that provide the technical and logistical support for research, training and exploration in Aquarius and the contiguous marine
environment. ARB provides unparalleled means to study coral reefs and the ocean, test state-of-the-art undersea technology, train
astronauts, including those from private industry, and specialized divers, and to engage the imagination of students and the public
across the globe in ocean science, coral reefs, conservation, and underwater technology. Since 1991, ARB has supported more than
269 science, training and exploration missions, 117 involving residency in Aquarius, the underwater habitat and laboratory,
producing more than 550 peer-reviewed scientific publications along with numerous popular articles and educational programs.
Perhaps the greatest scientific value of Aquarius is that it and its

surrounding waters has become a valuable

laboratory that has been monitoring one of the great marine disasters in history the rapid
decline of the coral reef ecosystem. Some scientists predict that if conditions persist, the next
generation will see the extinction of an entire worldwide marine ecosystem. NASA has
used Aquarius for 11 years as an extreme environmental analog to space flight. Aquarius
missions provide unparalleled mission training experience for astronauts , mission controllers, planners
and scientists. The most recently completed mission has fundamentally answered questions
pertaining to asteroid exploration . Recommendations FIU seeks to continue a strong
partnership with NOAA, NASA and other interested agencies for the foreseeable future enabling
FIU to develop a new business model to fund operations at Aquarius . The new business model will include research
and education activities supported by federal, state and local government funding, as well as fees for
services from science and engineering teams from government and industry that use the facility. Donations
from private benefactors also will be key to ensuring the future of Aquarius. FIU is the ideal partner for NOAA given
our close proximity to the ARB and our long-standing research efforts in the Florida Keys. FIUs
knowledge base and partnerships with other marine science research institutions make FIU the
ideal value-added partner for the NOAA-ARB project. FIUs leadership will safeguard the ARBs capability as a
research laboratory to greatly enhance our efforts to ensure the Florida Keys coastal environment will continue to be an important
and valuable part of our regions natural heritage. Of Particular Interest: The current agreement between NOAA and FIU funds the
operation and maintenance of Aquarius for the first six months of FY 2013.

To ensure continuity of this

important research, FIU requests support from Congress in securing additional

funding for the rest of FY 2013 and through FY 2014 and maintaining ARB as a federally
owned asset to protect FIU and its partners from unforeseen liabilities that may arise in the future.
Federal funding of Aquarius is key fosters STEM growth, better science, and
public-private partnerships (note: this card is divided into smaller pieces to fit
different purposes, make sure you dont accidentally read a certain part twice)
Heithaus 13 - Associate Dean of College of Arts and Sciences at Florida International University Aquarious Reef Base and
Partnerships in Ocean Observations (Dr. Michael, DEEP SEA CHALLENGE: INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS IN OCEAN
OBSERVATION, 6/11/13, HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST
GUARD of the COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87852/html/CHRG113shrg87852.htm) //CW
Aquarius Reef Base The

Aquarius is the only operating undersea laboratory, 43 feet long by 9 feet in

diameter that houses six aquanauts on the ocean floor 60 feet below the surface for 10-31 days at
a time. The habitat, the world's only operational marine habitat dedicated to science and
education, is a national treasure owned by NOAA. It has been sited in the Florida Keys Marine Sanctuary off Key Largo for
20 years and has proven to be instrumental in the advancement of oceanic research,
engaging America's future leaders through ocean-inspired learning, and serving
as a catalyst for development of the next generation of marine and extra planetary
explorers and exploration technologies. Research at Aquarius has directly guided the stewardship of not just the
Florida Keys National marine Sanctuary, but other coral reef ecosystems both in the U.S. and worldwide. An ocean observatory
Aquarius provides an ideal platform for long-term monitoring of coastal oceans and coral reefs.
It will serve as a permanent station, providing real-time and long-term data on the marine
environment, which will serve as an early-warning system for impacts to ocean ecosystems both
locally and globally. Because it can provide stable power, has a scalable IT infrastructure that
facilitates innovative sensor deployment, utilizes the latest industry communication technology
that offers a reliable means to transmit data and video, and is the only manned ocean observing
platform that allows for data ground-truthing and sensor design and testing Aquarius will
become a world-class ocean observation platform that will facilitate monitoring and
experimentation on, among other issues, the impacts of ocean acidification on coral reefs,
seagrass meadows and a diverse array of ocean organisms. The position of Aquarius makes
it particularly well- suited for studies of ocean acidification because it sits between
seagrass meadows, which remove CO2 that causes acidification, and the coral
reefs and open ocean that will be most impacted . The data generated by Aquarius will be
critical for guiding policy and conservation management to preserve these critical ecosystems
and potentially mitigate acidification worldwide. Finally, Aquarius Reef Base is, quite simply, the best platform for observing
the condition of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The National Marine Sanctuaries Act was intended to identify, designate, and
comprehensively manage marine areas of national significance. National marine sanctuaries are established for the public's long-term benefit, use, and
enjoyment. As home to the largest continental coral reef ecosystem in the U.S., upon which the economy of south Florida is based, the FKNMS was
designated. Sanctuary status is designed, among other things, to: Enhance resource protection through comprehensive and coordinated conservation
and ecosystem management that complements existing regulatory authorities. Support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring
of, the marine resources of the Florida Keys to improve management decision-making Enhance public awareness, understanding, and the wise use of
the marine environment through public interpretive, educational, and recreational programs. Aquarius is superbly enabled to facilitate all of these goals
of the FKNMS--with a special emphasis on the unique interpretive and educational programs it allows. A manned presence on the sea floor--and the
ability of citizens to share in that experience through traditional media outlets as well as live over the internet, ignites the imaginations of future

Fostering innovation Because of its well-studied and

strategic location, highly-trained and competent staff, land-based and boat-based
support infrastructure, stable power supply and climate-controlled conditions,
Aquarius provides the ideal location for the deployment, development and testing

scientists and educators like nothing else!

of new technologies. This is especially true for work that requires a human presence, since
inventors, engineers and technicians can have their hands on their technology 24 hours a day for
as long as a month during critical R&D stages. And, these same capabilities make Aquarius the
ideal place to compare competing technologies in a test-bed environment . STEM education:
inspiring the next generation Because of its ability to capture the imagination of
an entire country and world through the eyes of people living under the sea,
Aquarius can play an important role in ensuring American competitiveness for
generations to come. Equipped with the ability to send live video from the habitat and surrounding waters to schools, universities,
aquariums, and museums around the country, Aquarius can reach millions of students and citizens every year
while actual scientific and training missions are underway. They can watch science while it is
happening and experience it through the eyes of scientists, students, and teachers living and
working underwater! They can even interact with the aquanauts! Watching people living and
exploring the ocean captivates and inspires people, especially young students, in ways that
remote sensing cannot. The personal connection to ocean exploration, coupled with high-quality
curriculum, will inspire a generation of students and motivate understanding, achievement and
career choices. Funding Aquarius: a model of Public-Private Partnerships Florida International University took over operation of Aquarius
Reef Base in 2013 and has undertaken a transformation of its business model. Aquarius is transitioning to being supported
by a blend of partnerships with private industry, user fees, private philanthropic donations, and
state and Federal research and education grants. This new business model will ensure that
Aquarius will be available and providing significant benefits to American taxpayers for years to
come while lessening the tax dollars invested in its continuation . FIU is partnering with the Aquarius Foundation,
a not for profit dedicated to the support of the Aquarius project. There has been a public outpouring of support for Aquarius when NOAA signaled a
desire to close the lab. One of the first groups to step in in to support was the Diver's Alert Network (DAN). Stephen Frink, of DAN, agreed to serve on
the board of the Aquarius Foundation--which formed to save Aquarius. DAN has accepted donations for Aquarius and sponsored an end-of mission
fundraising event after a mission led by Dr. Sylvia Earle, who also sits on the board of Aquarius Foundation. Since FIU took over the operation of
Aquarius Reef Base, we

have been approached by companies interested in testing equipment for the

oceanographic, maritime industry, oils and gas exploration, extraction and delivery, and
aerospace applications. We have also had contact with private aerospace companies--as well as
NASA--since Aquarius provides the only facility of its kind for training astronauts in an extreme,
high-stakes, environment. We also have received considerable interest from media companies
and are developing partnerships with the local dive operators in the Florida Keys to enhance
their business while providing funding for Aquarius. Recognizing its incredible value for marine
sciences and education, we have begun to build important partnerships with groups and
individuals interested in helping provide financial support for FIU and Aquarius. One individual
has pledged $1.25 million, and assistance raising further funds, pending a long-term agreement
with NOAA on the future of the base. We have been partnering with Edeavorist.org to assist with the optimization of this crowd
funding platform, which will feature Aquarius's Teacher-Under-the-Sea program for the platform's launch in July 2013. Also, FIU and Guy Harvey

Key, however,
to realizing the potential of the growing public private partnerships for operating Aquarius is
continued support from the Federal Government. The investment need not be considerable. FIU and its private
partners needs NOAA to agree to a three-year plan that will transition the base from its previous
position of complete Federal support to the new mix of industry, governmental and
philanthropic support. This three-year plan must deal with issues remaining about the liability for operation and eventual
Foundation are working on a partnership to enhance marine education for K-12 students. A Need for Continued Federal Support

decommissioning of the facility.

Federal funding is key to Aquarius

Clark 12 (Cammy Clark, Key Largos Aquarius, last remaining underwater habitat lab, in jeopardy 7/31/12
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/31/2924005/key-largos-aquarius-last-remaining.html) SA
Ocean explorer Sylvia Earle, below, says the US Government's plan to terminate Aquarius is plain "stupid". Centre: Aquarius is a
living sea lab. COVER: Aquarius, inset, has become part of the reef eco system. Dr Joe Pawlik, a key investigator, works at the

Aquarius Reef Base. Photos: MCT By Cammy Clark Future of 'sea lab' lost at sea The

ocean has always played second

fiddle to ... space in funding. In 1962, seven years before astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, Albert Falco and
Claude Wesly captured the world's imagination by becoming the first humans to live under the sea in a strange steel cylinder
developed by Jacques Cousteau. Conshelf I, heralded as the world's first underwater habitat, was basically a big yellow oil drum with
a hole in the bottom - but it had the comforts of home with a television, radio, library and bed. For oneweek, Falco and Wesly lived
and worked at 10metres under the sea off the coast of Marseilles, France. The mysterious deep blue oceans became more exciting
and more inviting, beginning a new era of exploration and research. Soon, more than 60 underwater habitats from 17 countries
would take the plunge, including the US Navy's SEALAB, the General Electric- developed Tektite, the US government's Hydrolab
and La Chalupa Research Laboratory - developed by ocean explorer and entrepreneur Ian Koblick, who lives in Key Largo. But over
the decades, the

excitement for offshore underwater research habitats died down as the money
dried up. Today, there is just one operating in the world: Aquarius, anchored for the past 20years in waters
fivekilometres off the shore of Key Largo. By the end of this year, there could be none. "It's a bit disheartening that
Aquarius could go away - the last underwater habitat," says Craig Cooper, who retired two years ago after 19years
as Aquarius' operations director. "When I was young, I thought we'd all be living down in the sea in condos. But I found out the

the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which owns Aquarius, has called for
termination of the one-of-a- kind reef-base program, despite its minimal operating cost of
$1.2million to $3million. "That amount is what people at the Pentagon call decimal dust - a number
ocean is a tougher place than it looks to be from the surface." In its proposed $US5billion ($4.76billion) 2013 budget,

too small it's past the decimal point in the budget," professor of marine science at the College of William and Mary, Mark Patterson,
says. "For that amount, it could be the end of an era. "But we all hope not. Aquarius is too valuable to lose." Leading the
battle in Washington is US Republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who represents the Keys and has made four dives to Aquarius. She and
fellow Florida Congress members Mario Diaz-Balart and David Rivera took a boat ride out to Aquarius in mid-July, applauding the
aquanauts when they finished their long decompression after a week living in the sea. " There

is no other underwater
facility like it," Ros-Lehtinen says in a phone call from Washington. "It deserves our support." The three Congress
members met last week in Washington with NOAA's head, Jane Lubchenco, to urge her to divert $2million to fund
Aquarius for next year. Lubchenco, who scuba dived a reef in Key Largo twoyears ago for a pioneering coral reef restoration
project, said in a statement that the Aquarius program has been a "vital part" of ocean research , "but
unfortunately our budget environment is very, very challenging and we are unable to do all that we would like." Renowned ocean
explorer and former NOAA chief scientist Sylvia Earle, known as "Her Deepness" called the decision to end the underwater research
program "stupid". Aquarius has served scientists, researchers, underwater filmmakers and Navy divers. Forty NASA astronauts also
have trained in the habitat before going to space. The yellow, 81-tonne pressurise tube has six bunks, a bathroom, galley, science
station, state-of-the-art communications and "wet porch," from which aquanauts can enter and exit. The habitat's best asset is its
ability to give aquanauts the "gift of time". They can work for long hours in the ocean without worrying about having to surface for
air. The

habitat also provides an "alien atmosphere" that simulates a space station and the zero
gravity of asteroids. Last month, Earle and Patterson led Aquarius's 117th - and possibly last - mission. For sevendays, six
aquanauts lived and worked at 18metres below the surface at thriving Conch Reef. They conducted three science projects, while
celebrating the 50thanniversary of human habitation on the sea floor. But the mission primarily was a public relations crusade to
save Aquarius from being mothballed. Underwater filmmaker D.J.Roller, one of the mission's aquanauts, provided free streamed
footage of the mission. Nearly 250,000 people watched. "We made a cool discovery," Patterson says. The aquanauts learnt that
Goliath groupers disable their prey by blasting them with sound created by cavitation bubbles, which are caused by extreme pressure
drops in their mouths. "When the bubble collapses it makes an incredible shockwave," Patterson says. "You hear a low base click and
hear a thump going through your chest like somebody punched you in the gut." Patterson says this discovery will likely become
published after peer review. More than 300 scientific papers stemming from work at Aquarius have already been published in major
science journals. He says there

is so much more to learn, including potential medical breakthroughs .

away in the body of sponges could be the complex compounds that have the cure for
cancer," he says. Director of the Aquarius Reef Base Program, Thomas Potts, says now is not the time to end this lastof-its-kind program. "We should be triple or quadrupling what we are doing," he says. "We're just starting to touch
the surface of learning about ocean acidification and global climate change on the reefs. We finally
"Locked

have the technology that allows us to develop censors to take a good look in the water column and see what's happening at the
bottom." Potts works for the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, which has been operating the program for years with grant
money from NOAA. The university will end its affiliation on December31, when the current budget ends. There already is a "for sale"
sign outside the rented house in Key Largo that the program has been using as its land headquarters. Its staff of 17 has been reduced
to about five. Aquarius has faced dire times before. Its original home was in the US Virgin Islands, until Hurricane Hugo destroyed
St.Croix in 1989. That led to relocation in Key Largo. During two budget years, the program received "zero funding" but got a
reprieve. This

time, however, was the first time the budget called for the program's "termination". '

Effective Aquarius is the lynchpin of national ocean research

Eilperin, 12 reporter @ wash post (Juliet, Budget strikes down Aquarius, July 25, 2012,
The Washington Post, lexis)//AE
Sitting at a table 50 feet under the sea, legendary ocean explorer Sylvia

Earle lamented what she believes is a

shortsighted federal decision to cut off funding for the world's only undersea laboratory. She
was speaking by phone from the Aquarius Reef Base off the coast of Key Largo, Fla. She was one
of a handful of researchers participating last week in the last federally funded mission to the
Aquarius. The budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's national undersea research program is slated
to be eliminated, to the dismay of many researchers. " For science, we really need assets to keep eyes
on the sea, not just a few glimpses here and there ," said Earle, a National Geographic explorer in
residence. "We need to understand what we're doing and how to stabilize the systems that are
keeping us alive." Deployed in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary two decades ago after a four-year stint in the U.S.
Virgin Islands, the laboratory has hosted 117 missions since 1993. The 81-ton yellow tube holds six
bunks, a galley, a bathroom, a science station and a "wet porch ," where scuba-diving researchers enter and
exit. Visitors can stay for up to two weeks with no worry of getting the bends, because the air inside the Aquarius is pressurized.

Researchers, who dive up to 12 hours a day, have used the platform to investigate everything from how
sponges change the ocean's chemistry to the way water flows over a reef. But the federal budget
crunch and cost overruns in NOAA's satellite program have put pressure on the "wet side" of the
agency's budget - its ocean programs. Funding for the national undersea research
program plunged from $7.4 million in fiscal year 2011 to $3.98 million in fiscal 2012,
before the administration slated it for elimination in fiscal year 2013 . By contrast, NOAA has asked
for more than $2 billion to fund its weather satellite program in 2013 - a $163 million increase
from the current fiscal year. Former NOAA administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., who headed
the agency under President George W. Bush, called the decision to cut off funding for the Aquarius "pennywise and pound-foolish." He said the station - which runs on between $1 million and $4 million a
year, depending on the number of missions - also gives NASA astronauts a chance to practice
how to operate in space. " It is a national asset. It's not a large expense, but it's very
valuable for the entire national picture ," Lautenbacher said. "You have to have priorities, but to
put the oceans at the bottom all the time is a very bad thing to do." In a statement, NOAA Administrator
Jane Lubchenco, a marine ecologist by training, said the Aquarius "has been a vital part" of the
agency's oceans research "and we fully recognize its importance." "NOAA's core mission is to
conduct and support scientific research and exploration of the oceans ," she said. "Unfortunately,
our budget environment is very, very challenging and we are unable to do all that we would
like." The lab was vulnerable to the budget ax, in part, because it is part of a grant program;
although the Aquarius is owned by NOAA, it is run by the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington. Thomas Potts, the lab's director, said that the program sustained "tremendous cuts" in 1996 and 2006, but that
this time is different: "Now there is actual legislative language which says, boom, let's kill this." Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
(R-Fla.), the lab's fiercest proponent in the House, went diving Saturday to visit the lab with her
husband, Dexter, and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.). A third lawmaker, Rep. David Rivera (RFla.), snorkeled as part of the same event. Ros-Lehtinen said that only private donations through the
newly created Aquarius Foundation could keep the facility operating . "As NOAA funding ends for this
innovative laboratory, we are all hopeful that anAquarius Foundation will be able to reopen the base to
continue the important scientific studies undertaken there." Mark Patterson, a College of William and
Mary marine science professor http://seacamel.livingoceansfoundation.org/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=17&Itemid=64whose visit to the Aquarius last month marked his eighth visit there,

said

researchers like himself can learn much more by immersing themselves in an aquatic
environment. For example, working for days at a time underwater, he said, they can attach probes

to tiny coral polyps to monitor such things as the ocean's acidity and the way water moves .
"We're wiring up the corals to have them tell us their secrets in a way we never can in the lab ,"
Patterson said. "It's just such a better way to do science, to do it in the ocean rather than concoct a
caricature microcosm of nature in the laboratory. . . . I hope we're not all crying as we turn out the lights, because
working underwater is one of the most interesting things I do." Before the mission ended Saturday, the
Aquarius hosted journalists and a film crew from the group One World One Ocean, which produced several videos about the lab. "I
think a lot of people don't know what we have here," said Shaun MacGillivray, One World One Ocean's managing
director, adding that being in the Aquarius "feels like you're in outer space." Potts said he hasn't given up
hope, especially after hearing Lubchenco talk about the predicaments of coral reefs at the
International Coral Reef Symposium this month in Cairns, Australia . The Aquarius sits next to Florida's
Conch Reef. "Here it is, the case study, so now's not the time to pull the plug on these things," he said. "Now's the time to invest."

Fed funding is keyFIU concedes they suck

Heithaus 13Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences at FIU (Michael, Statement of Dr. Michael
Heithaus Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences Before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee
on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee Hearing June 13, 2013 Aquarius Reef Base and Partnerships in
Ocean Observations, http://government.fiu.edu/federal/dc-dispatches/current/Statement-of-Dr-Michael-Heithaus.html//cc)

Florida International University took over operation of Aquarius Reef Base in 2013 and has undertaken
a transformation of its business model. Aquarius is transitioning to being supported by a blend
of partnerships with private industry, user fees, private philanthropic donations, and state and federal research and
education grants. This new business model will ensure that Aquarius will be available and providing significant benefits to American
taxpayers for years to come while lessening the tax dollars invested in its continuation. FIU is partnering with the Aquarius
Foundation, a not for profit dedicated to the support of the Aquarius project. There

has been a public outpouring of

support for Aquarius when NOAA signaled a desire to close the lab . One of the first groups to step in in to
support was the Divers Alert Network (DAN). Stephen Frink, of DAN, agreed to serve on the board of the Aquarius Foundation which formed to save Aquarius. DAN has accepted donations for Aquarius and sponsored an end-of mission fundraising event after
a mission led by Dr. Sylvia Earle, who also sits on the board of Aquarius Foundation. Since FIU took over the operation of Aquarius
Reef Base, we have been approached by companies interested in testing equipment for the oceanographic, maritime industry, oils
and gas exploration, extraction and delivery, and aerospace applications. We have also had contact with private aerospace
companies as well as NASA since Aquarius provides the only facility of its kind for training astronauts in an extreme, highstakes, environment. We also have received considerable interest from media companies and are developing partnerships with the
local dive operators in the Florida Keys to enhance their business while providing funding for Aquarius. Recognizing its incredible
value for marine sciences and education, we have begun to build important partnerships with groups and individuals interested in
helping provide financial support for FIU and Aquarius. One individual has pledged $1.25 million, and assistance raising further
funds, pending a long-term agreement with NOAA on the future of the base. We have been partnering with Edeavorist.org to assist
with the optimization of this crowd funding platform, which will feature Aquariuss Teacher-Under-the Sea program for the
platforms launch in July 2013. Also, FIU and Guy Harvey Foundation are working on a partnership to enhance marine education for

A need for continued federal support Key, however, to realizing the potential of
the growing public private partnerships for operating Aquarius is continued support from the
Federal Government. The investment need not be considerable . FIU and its private partners
needs NOAA to agree to a three-year plan that will transition the base from its previous
position of complete federal support to the new mix of industry, governmental and
philanthropic support. This three-year plan must deal with issues remaining about the liability for operation and eventual
K-12 students.

decommissioning of the facility.

fed funding keyoceans

The federal government needs to invest in ocean research and exploration
private funding is inadequate (1AC level)
Rockefeller 13Senator for West Virginia, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation (Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Jun 11 2013, Deep Sea Challenge: Innovative
Partnerships in Ocean Observation, http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?
p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=29496bc2-fdb7-47c7-93ef-0def99cf9d6c&Statement_id=e7a711a0-2ddd-48ac-b9e4de831953b9e7&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=6&YearDisplay=2013//cc)
Oceans cover more than two-thirds of the Earths surface, so one would expect that we might understand their complex ecosystems
and environments. But vast depths of the ocean remain complete mysteries to us . We know more about the
surface of Mars than we do about the deepest depths of our oceans. Todays hearing is about bringing the best science and data
together from private companies, research institutions, colleges and universities, and public agencies to improve our knowledge
and understanding of the ocean. The

federal government has a proud and successful history of scientific

research that has given us manned missions to the Moon and exciting potential alternative energy sources.
We know that the federal government can support research that goes straight to our understanding
of difficult problems. Our oceans and environment are facing a crisis. As carbon dioxide increases in our
atmosphere, it simultaneously increases in our ocean. This is making the seas more acidic, which has adverse ramifications for our
ecosystems, communities, and maritime industries like commercial fishing and tourism. Research

into our oceans

changing chemistry must be a priority . With better information about ocean acidification, we
can begin to understand how our marine resources and coastal communities will be affected. This Committee
has fought to increase coordination among federal agencies to monitor ocean acidification, and will consider additional legislation
during this congressional session. Current

federal investments in ocean observation are

woefully inadequate and the self-inflicted budget wounds that Washington is grappling with
do not help. So we need to look for new and innovative ways to fund research that supports and improves
the livelihoods of those who rely on our oceans and also supports and improves the future of ocean research. Already the publicprivate partnership model is being successfully applied to ocean research, and that is what two of our witnesses are here today to
discuss. Mr. Camerons ocean expeditions have captured Americas attention and given the ocean observation community incredible
samples that aide scientific research. He has 72 previous dives to his credit, but his dive to the Mariana Trench is perhaps the most
impressive. His expedition has potentially resulted in the discovery of several new species I dont think many people can add that
to their list of accomplishments. The one thing that might be more impressive is that Mr. Cameron isnt satisfied with simply diving
deeper than any other human. He is donating the submersible to make the technological advances from his expeditions available for
future scientific study. Given the general lack of research in many areas of ocean observation, it is encouraging to see that private
groups are forging ahead to fill in the scientific gaps. The

burden should not be on private institutions however.

The federal government has a critical role to play. The first dive to the Mariana Trench was piloted by
a Navy Lieutenant more than 50 years ago. The government used to be at the forefront of ocean observation
and discovery. But fights to blindly reduce government spending have taken many victims,
including scientific research. Until we prioritize spending that will benefit future generations in this country, we will
continue to unnecessarily take victims. The private sector continues to make important investments in research to better understand
vital scientific issues. But the

federal government has yet to receive the potential benefits of signing on

to public-private partnerships. These public-private partnerships present opportunities
to advance scientific research, despite our budget issues. Unfortunately, the governments
unwillingness at this point to signal a serious commitment to scientific research has turned off
some potential partners. We all have a responsibility when it comes to conserving our oceans for
future generations. This responsibility begins with a commitment to federal
investments in scientific research that can help us understand how the oceans are
changing. We are missing opportunities to gain crucial knowledge and without it, we will not be able to stem
the tide and reverse environmental problems that threaten ecosystems and the economic backbones of our coastal communities.

Really good fed key warrant, but not about Aquarius specifically (also maybe even
1ac quality)
Avery 13Director, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (Susan, DEEP SEA CHALLENGE:
INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS IN OCEAN OBSERVATION, HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS,
ATMOSPHERE, FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD of the COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 11, 2013 Printed for the use of the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 6/13, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113shrg87852/html/CHRG113shrg87852.htm//cc)
But while we have long-established, extensive networks of meteorological instruments continually monitoring our atmosphere,

we

have just begun to establish a relative toehold of long-term observatories to understand, and
monitor how the ocean operates. To truly comprehend Earth's dynamic behavior and to monitor how it affects
us back on land, scientists must establish a long-term presence in the ocean, including platforms and
suites of physical, chemical, and biological sensors from which to view how the ocean and seafloor change in fine resolution over
seasons, years, and decades. This same observing capability

will provide the basis for improved forecasts from

models that incorporate data and observations from the ocean, atmosphere, and land and that provide the basis for
decision making by national, state, and local agencies. Variability such as weather events associated with
ENSO has significant societal and economic impacts in the U.S., and a combination of a dedicated ocean-observing system in the

The
promise of additional benefits from observing, understanding, and predicting the ocean
and its impacts is real . Modeled reconstructions by Hoerling and Kumar of the 1930s drought in the Central U.S. recently
tropical Pacific plus models that forecast ENSO impacts is now in place to help society adapt in times of increased variability.

linked that event to patterns of anomalies in sea-surface temperature far from the U.S.\6\ The global scale of the circulation of the
ocean and basin- scale patterns of ocean variability on decadal and longer time scales may present sources of improved predictive
skill in future weather and climate models. Moving forward, we need to be even more adaptive and agile ,
applying new technologies in ways that both make crucial observations more effectively and make coincident observations of the
biology, chemistry, and physics of the ocean. At the same time we need at our modeling and prediction centers to establish the

We are on
the edge of exploration of many ocean frontiers that will be using new eyes in the ocean . Publicfunded/private-funded investment in those eyes is required, but will not be successful without
adequate and continuing Federal commitment to ocean science . Support such as Jim's and
resources and mindset that will support testing and adoption of research results that lead to improved predictions.

the Schmidt Ocean Institute, which was founded by Eric Schmidt and operates the research vessel Falkor, help fill gaps in support
for research and development or for access to the ocean. However, the

fact remains that Federal funding is by

far the leading driver of exploration, observation, and technical research and development
that has a direct impact on the lives of people around the world and on U.S. economic
growth and leadership . It also remains the bellwether by which philanthropic
entrepreneurs judge the long-term viability of the impact their investment will
have on the success that U.S. ocean science research will have around the globe .
The US should adopt a national strategy toward oceanic scientific research
US Commission on Ocean Policy 4 (Preliminary Report US Commission on Ocean Policy Chapter 25: Creating a
National Strategy for Increasing Scientific Knowledge 303
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/oceancommission/documents/prelimreport/chapter25.pdf//cc)
Federal Leadership in Ocean Science and Technology ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL STRATEGY The

United States does

not have a national strategy for ocean and coastal research, exploration, and marine operations
that can integrate ongoing efforts, promote synergies among federal, state, and local governments, academia, and the private sector,
translate scientific and technological advances into operational applications, and establish national goals and objectives for
addressing high-priority issues. Instead, for the most part, each federal ocean agency independently addresses its own specific
information needs. A

national strategy can help meet the ocean resource management challenges of
the 21st century and ensure that useful products result from federal investments in ocean
research. Moving toward ecosystem-based management approaches will require a new generation of scientific understanding.
Specifically, more needs to be known about how marine ecosystems function on varying spatial

scales, how human activities affect marine ecosystems and how, in turn, these changes affect human
health. Ecosystem-based management will also require a deeper understanding of biological,
physical, chemical, and socioeconomic processes and interactions . For example, as coastal population
growth feeds a demand for new construction, managers will need to know which activities may cause rapid erosion of the beach,
increased turbidity that harms a coral reef, or economic disruption. In another example, fishery conservation can be promoted by
protecting spawning grounds and other essential habitat; to make this possible, scientists and managers must understand the
fundamental biology of the fish species. Maintaining

overall ecosystem health also requires an improved

understanding of biological diversity on different levels, including genetic diversity (the variety of
genetic traits within a single species), species diversity (the number of species within an ecosystem), and ecosystem
diversity (the number of different ecosystems on Earth). The largest threats to maintaining diversity on all three scales are
human activities, such as overfishing, pollution, habitat alteration, and introductions of non-native species. The extent of marine
biological diversity, like so much about the ocean, remains unknown. But based on the rate at which new species are currently being
discovered, continued

exploration of the ocean is almost certain to result in the documentation of

many additional species that can provide fresh insights into the origin of life and human biology. A national
strategy should promote the scientific and technological advances required to observe, monitor, assess, and predict environmental
events and long-term trends. Foremost in this category is climate change. The role of the ocean in climate, although critical, remains
poorly understood. The ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity of the freshwater lakes and rivers, ocean circulation drives the global
heat balance, and ocean biochemistry plays a primary role in controlling the global carbon cycle. The process of climate change
should be examined both on geologic time scales, such as the transitions between ice ages, and over shorter periods of time. The
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will increase the melting of polar ice, introducing large quantities of fresh water into
the North Atlantic. Many researchers now believe that could drastically change ocean circulation and weather patterns in the span of
a couple of years.1 In particular, the Gulf Stream could slow or stop, causing colder temperatures along the eastern seaboard of the
United States and ramifications around the globe. It is in mans interests to learn more about the processes that lead to abrupt
climate changes, as well as their potential ecological, economic, and social impacts. Even as we try to comprehend the role of the
ocean in climate change, we need also to understand the effects of climate change on ocean ecosystems. If temperatures around the
globe continue to warm, sea level will continue to rise, putting many coastal residents at greater risk from storm surges and erosion.
For individual ecosystems, even small changes in ocean temperature can put the health and lives of sea creatures and humans at
risk. Ocean monitoring, through programs like the IOOS, will be essential for detecting and predicting changes more accurately,
thereby improving prospects for minimizing harmful effects. Some large initiatives, such as the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program and the Census of Marine Life, have been launched in the last couple of years to study large-scale research topics. However,
many of the issues most relevant to the needs of coastal managers do not occur on such global scales. Due to the regional nature of
many ocean and coastal ecosystem processes, regional-scale research programs are also needed. Currently, insufficient emphasis is
placed on this kind of research. The regional ocean information programs discussed in Chapter 5 are designed to close this gap and
increase our understanding of ocean and coastal ecosystems by prioritizing, coordinating, and funding research that meets regional
and local management needs. At the state level, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations (NOAAs) National Sea
Grant College Program can make essential contributions to achieving research goals. The state Sea Grant programs have the
organization and infrastructure necessary to fund research and conduct educational activities that will expand understanding of
ocean ecosystems up and down our coasts. Sea Grants current strategic plan focuses on promoting ecosystem-based management
and on involving constituencies from government, universities, the public and the private sector, all of whom are needed to
strengthen the U.S. research enterprise.2 It

is time for the United States to establish a national strategy for

ocean research investments, and oversee implementation and funding of programs throughout
the ocean science community. This plan should address issues at the global, regional, state, and local levels. It should
emphasize ecosystem-based science to help resolve the current mismatch between the size and complexity of marine ecosystems and
the fragmented nature of science and the federal structure. Better

coordination and integration will help provide

the information needed to sustain resources, protect human lives and property, identify and
nurture new beneficial uses, and resolve issues that result from competing activities. A unified
national approach to ocean research, exploration, and marine operations, structured around
national investment priorities, will also result in wiser and more efficient use of resources.

private funding badaquarius

Private funding forces research havens to become tourist locations, which
prevents actual sciencekeeping Aquarius federal is key
Huffington Post 13 News Agency (Huffington Post, The Closure Of Aquarius Reef Base And America's Scientific
Ambitions, 6/25/13, http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/closure-aquarius-reef-base-and-americas-scientific-ambitions) //CW

Just a half-century ago, as the nation set its sights on the moon, the concept of equipping freeswimming divers to work out of a sea-floor base sounded like science fiction. No one had ever
done such a thing and the very notion went against long-established diving limits, both in terms
of depth and duration. Then the U.S. Navy let a few eager scientists and divers loose and reluctantly at first - the Navy put some money into Sealab, a series of experimental undersea
habitats. While probes, robotic devices and sensors may be cheaper or better suited to some types of undersea monitoring and
exploration - just as they are in the harsh, distant destinations of outer space -- Sealab became a dramatic
demonstration of how extended stays by human divers in a properly outfitted undersea shelter
were indeed possible, and that such manned missions could have distinct advantages for
scientific, military or industrial purposes. A smattering of several dozen habitats around the
world followed the example of Sealab, including an American-led project called Tektite, a successful venture of the
early 1970s in which none other than Sylvia Earle led an all-female aquanaut team. A little later a privately instigated
research habitat called La Chalupa ran missions for a few years. In the 1980s it was converted it
into Jules' Undersea Lodge, the world's only underwater hotel, which is in a Key Largo lagoon, not far from
Aquarius headquarters. If Aquarius, the last of the undersea habitats, is able to survive, there's
probably a better chance there might someday be others, in other places, as once envisioned .
Some forward-looking American politicians even see this as a time to expand mankind's underwater presence instead of retreating
to the surface. "I would think it would ideal to have a vessel like this, say, along the Great Barrier Reef, in the Coral Triangle, maybe
somewhere in the South Pacific, in northern latitudes as well," says former congressman Brian Baird, who served on the House
Committee on Science and Technology and made several dives to Aquarius during his six terms. "Station them around the world in
key locations and combine that data and build the expertise." Following

the example of America's original

aquanauts, would mean expanding our reach into the semi-final frontier. Without Aquarius,
it'll be harder to get back to that future.

private funding badr&d/science

Lack of federal funding kills science leadership philanthropy can never fill in
BROAD 14 - science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times (WILLIAM J., Billionaires With Big Ideas Are
Privatizing American Science, 3/15/14, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-bigideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0) //CW
In November 2012, the

White House issued a thick and portentous update on the health of the nations
research complex. Produced by Mr. Obamas Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, it
warned of American declines, emphasized the rise of scientific rivals abroad and called for bold
policy interventions. Without adequate support for such research, the experts
wrote in their cover letter, the United States risks losing its leadership in
invention and discovery. The financial outlook had fallen far and fast. Congress had long reached across party lines to support
government research, for its economic and military rewards and because the distribution of billions of dollars plays well come election time. After rising
steadily for decades, federal science financing hit a high point in 2009, in the early days of the Obama administration, as Congress, to stimulate the
economy amid the global financial crisis, allocated about $40 billion for basic science. That

bipartisan consensus eroded with

the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives in the 2010 midterm elections and the
budget battles that followed. Spending on basic research has fallen by roughly a quarter, to $30
billion last year, one of the sharpest declines ever. The cutbacks translate into layoffs: A group of
scientific societies recently surveyed 3,700 scientists and technical managers and reported that
55 percent knew of colleagues who had lost jobs or expected to lose them soon . <<picture removed>> In an
interview, the director of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Francis S. Collins, called 2013 one of his agencys darkest years ever, with fewer grants

The
cutbacks, Dr. Collins said, were profoundly discouraging. Largely unmentioned
in the gloom is the rise of private science . The White House report mentioned
philanthropy only in passing. We didnt do it justice, said one of the authors, speaking on
condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the reports preparation.
Science policy has always been shot through with politics. Little surprise, then, that political
sensitivities have been stoked by the injection of philanthropic money into this traditionally
public sphere. The official reticence about private science may reflect, in part, a fear that
conservatives will try to use it to further a small-government agenda. Indeed, some of the donors
themselves worry that too much focus on private giving could diminish public
support for federal science . Its always been a major worry, said Robert W. Conn, president of the Kavli Foundation, which has
awarded and with jobs and programs cut. In decades past, research financed by the institutes won more than 100 Nobel Prizes.

committed nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to science and is part of the private effort to increase financing for basic research.
Philanthropy

is no substitute for government funding. You cant say that loud

enough.
Private funding of R&D is bad assumes all of their warrants
Washburn 07 critically acclaimed writer and researcher at New York University (Jennifer, Science's Worst Enemy:
Corporate Funding, Discover Magazine, 10/11/07, http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding)
//CW

In recent years there have been a number of highly visible attacks on American science,
everything from the fundamentalist assault on evolution to the Bush administrations strongarming of government scientists. But for many people who pay close attention to research and
development (R&D), the biggest threat to science has been quietly occurring under
the radar, even though it may be changing the very foundation of American
innovation. The threat is moneyspecifically, the decline of government support
for science and the growing dominance of private spending over American

research . The trend is undeniable. In 1965, the federal government financed more than 60 percent of all R&D in the United States. By 2006, the
balance had flipped, with 65 percent of R&D in this country being funded by private interests. According to the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, several of the nations science-driven agenciesthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of the Interior, and NASAhave been losing funding, leading to more outsourcing of what were once governmental science functions.
The EPA, for example, recently began conducting the first nationwide study on the air quality effects of large-scale animal production. Livestock
producers, not taxpayers, are slated to pay for the study. The

government is clearly increasing its reliance on

industry and forming joint ventures to accomplish research that it is unable to afford on its own
anymore, says Merrill Goozner, a program director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group. Research
universities, too, are rapidly privatizing. Both public and private institutions now receive a shrinking portion of
their overall funding from government sources. They are looking instead to private industry and
other commercial activities to enhance their funding . Last summer, an investigation by the San Jose Mercury News found
that one-third of Stanford Universitys medical school administrators and department heads now have reported financial conflicts of interest related to
their own research. These included stock options, consulting fees, and patents. Is all this truly harmful to science? Some

experts argue
that corporate support is actually beneficial because it provides enhanced funding for R&D,
speeds the transfer of new knowledge to industry, and boosts economic growth. It isnt enough
to create new knowledge, says Richard Zare, a professor of chemistry at Stanford University.
You need to transfer that knowledge for the betterment of society. Thats why I dont want to
set up this conflict of interest problem to such a heightened level of hysteria whereby you cant
get universities cooperating with industry. Even many industry leaders worry that the current mix of private and public
funding is out of balance, however. In 2005, a panel of National Academies (the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine) that
included both industry and academic members (including Zare) concluded that
corporate R&D cannot and should not replace federal R&D. Norman Augustine, the panels
chairman and a former CEO at Lockheed Martin, noted that market pressures have compelled industry to put nearly all its investment into applied
research, not the riskier basic science that drives innovation 10 to 15 years out. Others

fear that if the balance tips too far, the

public interest side of the science systemknown for its commitment to independence and
objectivitywill atrophy. Earlier this year, former FDA commissioner Jane Henney remarked
that its getting much more difficult to get that pure person with no conflicts at all. . . . The
question becomes both one of disclosure and how much of a conflict you can have and still be
seen as an objective and knowledgeable reviewer of information. More than half the scientists at the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service who responded to a survey conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2005 agreed that commercial interests
have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions
through political intervention.

Private funding b bad

Washburn 07 critically acclaimed writer and researcher at New York University (Jennifer, Science's Worst Enemy:
Corporate Funding, Discover Magazine, 10/11/07, http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding)
//CW
In general, industry-funded

studies are also subject to far less oversight than comparable federally
funded studies. The data underlying private research do not have to be made public, unlike the
data from federally sponsored research. A privately funded study can also avoid external
scrutiny simply by being labeled confidential business information . One study by the Government
Accountability Office found that a majority of the applications submitted to the EPA to market new
chemicals contained science-based information that industry had labeled confidential. As a result of
these trends, Lisa Bero says, science has become one of the most powerful tools that private companies can
use to fight regulation. The strategy they most often deploy was pioneered by the tobacco industry, which learned to foment scientific
uncertainty as a means of staving off regulation. A famous tobacco industry document from 1969 spells out the strategy succinctly: Doubt is our
product, since it is the best means of competing with the body of fact that exists in the mind of

the general public. It is also the means of establishing controversy . In 2003, Frank Luntz, a political consultant to
the Republican Party, recommended using the same strategy to combat public environmental concerns. Voters believe that there is no
consensus about global warming within the scientific community, he wrote. Should the public
come to believe the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change
accordingly. Therefore, you need to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the
debate. Some policymakers fail to recognize that all studies are not created equal , says Michaels, the
author of a forthcoming book, Doubt Is Their Product: How Industrys Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. This results in the
existence of what appear to be equal and opposite studies, encouraging policymakers to do
nothing in the face of what appear to be contradictory findings. Virtually everyone interviewed
for this article agrees about one thing: The U.S. government must strengthen its
investment in science. The members of Norman Augustines 2005 National Academies panel continue to call for an immediate
doubling of federal investment in basic science, arguing that basic science is a quintessential public good that
only the federal government can properly fund. The rewards of basic research are
risky and diffuse, making it difficult for individual companies to invest in .

Privatization forces scientists out of leading their own research

Washburn 07 critically acclaimed writer and researcher at New York University (Jennifer, Science's Worst Enemy:
Corporate Funding, Discover Magazine, 10/11/07, http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding)
//CW

Even when academic physicians are involved, often they dont enjoy anything close to true
research independence, Nissen says: Academic physicians are still involved in the leadership of the
study, but not fundamentally in the design of the study, or in the key aspects of the execution of
the study. Often, he notes, the industry sponsor will prevent the academic investigator from
performing any independent analysis of the complete raw data related to his or her research . The
physician gets a printout of the main results, Nissen says, but the actual analysis itself is done by statisticians within
the companies. In 2001, the editors of 12 leading medical journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet,
expressed their shock at what was happening to independent scientific inquiry. Many of these journals implemented new
policies requiring authors to sign a statement verifying that they had unfettered access to the
complete trial data, took full responsibility for the conduct of the trial, and controlled the
decision to publish. But cases of commercial influence continue to surface, often making
headlines, prompting some editors, like Drummond Rennie, an editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association, to
sound defeated: You know, if people lie to us, all we can do is reveal that lies were told
afterwardsand usually theyre lying on their way to the bank.

Private funding is bad for a laundry list of reasons and inevitable absent a shift
from the squo
Hossenfelder 13 - Assistant Physicist Professor at NORDITA (Intergovernmental research institute for theoretical
physics) (Sabine, Private Funding for Science A Good Idea?, 1/1/13, http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2013/01/privatefunding-for-science-good-idea.html) //CW

Basic research, with its dramatically high failure rate, is for the most part an unglamorous
brain exercise whose purpose as well as appeal is difficult to communicate. Results can take
centuries to even been recognized as results. The vast majority of researchers and research findings will not even make a
footnote in the history of science. Basic research rarely makes sexy headlines. And if, it is because somebody
misspelled hadron. All that makes it an essential, yet unlikely, target of private donations . Even
Jeffrey Sachs, after some trial and error, came around to realize that raw capitalism left to its own devices may fail people
and societal goals. Basic investments like infrastructure, education, and basic research are tax-

funded because they're in the category where the market works very badly, where pay-offs are
too far into the future for tangible profits. The solution to this shortcoming of capitalism cannot
be to delegate decisions to the club of billionaires and hope they be wise and well-meaning.
Money is not a good. Its a virtual tool to direct investment of real resources: labor, energy,
time. The central question is not whose money is it, but how resources are best put to use. We previously discussed a specific type of private funding
of science: crowdfunding. The problem with crowdfunding is that chances of funding depend primarily on
the skilled presentation of a project, and not on its potential scientific relevance. A recent article in Time
Magazine Crowdfunding a Cure (subscription only) reported a trend from the United States in which online services allow patients and their relatives
to raise money to pay for medical treatments, organ donations, or surgeries .

One obvious problem with this approach is

fraud. (If you think nobody would possibly want to fake cancer, think twice and read this.) What bothers me even more is the
same issue as with the crowdfunding of science: You better be popular and good at social
networking if you want to raise enough money for a new kidney. Last weeks issue of Time Magazine published a
readers comment from Claes Molin, Sweden. This is how crowdfunding medical treatments looks from the Scandinavian perspective: It is moving to

But the steps

described to raise money, including displaying personal details for strangers to see and
remembering to say thank you, sound a lot like being forced to beg. I understand that values
differ, but government-funded health care would let people keep their dignity, along with their
peace of mind, in the face of life-threatening disease. A thesis project isnt as serious as a lifethreatening disease, but the root of the problem with crowdfunding either is the same.
Crowdfunding is neither an efficient nor a fair way to distribute money, and thus
the resources that follow . It is a simple way, a presently popular way, and a last hope resort for those who have been failed by their
government. But researchers shouldnt be forced to waste time on marketing like patients shouldnt be
forced to waste time on illustrating their sufferings, and in neither case should the success
depend on the popularity of their presentation. Be that as it may, crowdfunding is and will most likely remain a drop in the
read about the altruism displayed by crowdfunding for medical procedures, and I dont doubt the sincerity of the donors.

drying lake of science funding. I strongly doubt it has the potential to significantly change the direction of scientific research; there just isnt enough
money to go round in the crowd. Paying attention to private funding by wealthy individuals is much more pressing. Wealthy

donors often
drive their own agenda. This bears a high risk that some parts of research, the unglamorous
but essential parts, simply do not receive attention, and that researchers interests are
systematically skewed to the disadvantage of scientific progress. The German association of science foundations
(Deutscher Stifterverband fr die Wissenschaft) is, loosely speaking, a head organization for private donors to science that manages funds. (Note that
the German use of the word science encompasses the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities and mathematics.) I once spent a quite
depressing hour browsing through the full list of in total 560 foundations that they have to date (this includes foundations exclusively for scholarships
and prizes). 56 of them are listed under natural sciences and engineering. There isnt a single one remotely related to quantum gravity or physics
beyond the standard model. The two that come closest are the Andrejewski Foundation that hands out a total of EUR 9000 per year to invite lecturers
on topics relating math and physics, and the Schmidt Foundation for basic research in the natural sciences in general, which however has an even
smaller total funding. (Interestingly, their fund is distributed by the German Research Foundations and, so I assume, subject to the standard peer
review.) Then what do people donate to in the natural sciences? Most

donors, it seems, donate to very specific topics

that are closely related to their own interest. Applications of steel for example. Railroad
development. The improvement of libraries at technical universities. The scientific cooperation
between Hungary and Germany. And so on. So much about the vision of the wealthy. To be fair however, the large foundations
are not to be found in this list, they do their own management. And there exist indeed the occasional billionaires with an interest in basic research in
physics, such as Kavli, Lazaridis, Tschira, Templeton. And, more recently, Yuri Milner with his sur-prizes. If you work like me in a field that seems
constantly underfunded, where you see several hundred applications for two-year positions and people uproot families every other year to stay in
academia, you are of course grateful to anybody who eases financial pressures. But what price is the scientific community paying? Money sets
incentives and affects researchers scientific interests by offering funding, jobs, or rewards. The recurring debate over the influence of the Templeton

We have a lot to lose

in this game if we allow the vanity of wealthy individual to influence what research is conducted
tomorrow. There is another problem with private funding, which is lack of financial stability.
One of the main functions of governmental funding of basic research is its sustained, continuous
availability and reliability. High quality research builds on educational and technological
infrastructure and expertise. It withers away if funding runs dry, and once people have moved
elsewhere or to other occupations, rebuilding this infrastructure and attracting bright people is
difficult and costly. Private donations are ill-suited to address this issue. A recent Nature
foundation touches on this tension. And what effect will Milners prizes have on the coming generation of scientists?

Editorial Haste

not Speed comments on the problem of stability with US funding in

particular: [W]hen it comes to funding science, predictability is more of a virtue
than speed, and stability better than surprise. All this is not to say that I disapprove of private funding. But as
always, one has to watch out for unwanted side-effects. So heres my summary of side-effects: Interests of wealthy
individuals can affect research directions leading to an inefficient use of
resources, leaving essential areas out of consideration . Keep in mind that the relevant question is not
whose money it is, but how it is best used to direct investment of resources into an endeavor, science, with the aim of serving our societies. When it

somebodys personal interest or

experience is not a good basis for decision. Short-circuiting peer review saves time
and effort in the short run, but individual opinion is unlikely to lead to
scientifically more desirable outcomes . Eyeing and relying on private donations is tempting for governments and
institutional boards, especially when times are rough. This slope can be slippery and lead to a situation
where scientists are expected to beg for money, which is not a good use of their
time and skills, and questionable to result in fair and useful funding schemes. The
volume of private funding and the interests of donors tend to be unstable, which
makes it particularly ill-suited for areas like basic research where expertise needs
sustained financial commitment.
comes to delicate questions like which scientific project is most promising,

private funding badstem

Privatization kills STEM sectors of education too much competition for too few
positions also skews results
Hinkes-Jones 14 - Washington, DCbased writer and journalist covering the property rights movement, private prisons,
cocaine markets, and tech labor (Llewllyn, Bad Science, June 2014, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/06/bad-science/) //CW

Not only do patents push higher prices onto consumers, they burden the research world with the
increased costs of paying for the intellectual property needed to do further research. Research
labs have to pay thousands of dollars for the strains and processes needed to build upon current
developments, adding more costs to cutting-edge research. The profit-driven atmosphere of the current research
system is a far cry from the one Jonas Salk worked in when he discovered the cure for polio. His discovery, which affected millions around the world

While Salk rhetorically wondered whether

it was acceptable to patent the sun to make a profit, todays race for intellectual
property claims is quickly approaching that absurd proposition. Though having more money
invested in public education and hastening the development of new technology is ostensibly a public good , the influence of capital
from private industry is largely corruptive. Combined with the sharp decline in state funding for education, BayhDole has helped privatize the public university system. Without those public funds, universities have become ever
more dependent on private investment through grants and donations. And with that money
comes corrosive influences on academia. Nowhere is this conflict of interest as prevalent as in pharmacology and biotechnology.
suffering from a debilitating disease, was effectively given away for free.

Academics in those fields are commonly paid to sign their names to ghostwritten journal articles, promote drugs, and discover drugs based on market
potential rather than the public good. They earn outsized consulting fees and lucrative speaking deals at industry-funded conferences in exchange for
their compliance. In the case of Pfizer and their anticonvulsant drug Neurontin, academics were paid $1,000 a paper to sign their names to journal
articles written by unknown medical ghostwriters and to speak at conferences extolling the virtues of a drug, initially intended for epilepsy sufferers, to
treat anything from bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and insomnia to restless leg syndrome, hot flashes, migraines, and tension
headaches. Not

only are consumers misinformed about the safety and efficacy of the prescription
drugs they take, but they pay the costs three times over: by funding public university research to
discover these drugs, by paying the higher costs on patented drugs, and by accepting the
pharmaceutical industrys tax write-offs for their university sponsorships . Even with limited public funding
and an increased dependence on private financing, universities havent stopped spending, particularly on new facilities. A McGraw-Hill Construction
survey estimated that over $11 billion had been spent on construction by higher education institutions between 2010 and 2012. By floating massive
bonds to pay for new biomedical research facilities and state-of-the-art gymnasiums, schools hope to attract the students, star researchers, and funding
that will help pay for it all. But these schools have wildly overcommitted themselves, and by doing so theyve entered into the vicious cycle of a debtors
beauty contest. They are spending massively to do research that can attract the grants and land the intellectual property jackpot to pay for the bloated
administrative costs and massive debt theyve incurred. The burden of this scramble for money and fame is left on the students. Over the last thirty
years, tuition costs have increased sixfold. There are fewer and fewer post-graduate opportunities, even in the world of academic research where so

Instead of
employing more staff scientists, underpaid post-doctoral students are hired for
half the cost to produce the eye-catching research that attracts grant money. Those
students then go on to graduate into a science field flooded with other post-docs
who are in direct competition for the dwindling number of established research
positions available. The result is a highly competitive job market where too many
are left fighting for fewer position s. Across the whole university system, the pressure to cut
costs means that tenure-track positions are being replaced by adjuncts with low pay and no job
security as the salaries of administrators and college presidents continually rise . In what Georgia State
much is being spent. The flood of private money coming to the research system hasnt made its way to expanding academic careers.

University economics professor Paula Stephan has referred to as an academic pyramid scheme, the resulting discrepancy between underpaid post-docs
and adjuncts with minimal career prospects and the diminishing number of tenured, well-paid, and established star scientist positions mimics a

and
more earth-shattering studies by star scientists need to be published in prominent journals to
garner the attention and the grants needed to keep up appearances and keep the lights on in the
lab. In Stephans words, Bigger is seen as better: more funding, more papers, more citations,
and more trainees regardless of whether the market can sustain their employment . The end
result is a greater imperative not just to publish or perish, but to publish groundbreaking,
tournament structure for scientific inquiry. It is a cutthroat beauty-contest atmosphere that takes its toll on the science being done. More

provocative insights into our understanding of the world around us that require further
investigation in highly respected journals or perish. In the words of Stephen Quake, professor of bioengineering at
Stanford, it is funding or famine. Within that decision matrix, the incentive to falsify
findings, cut corners, and cherry-pick data becomes more advantageous . Whatever
it takes to get more papers out the door and more grants coming in. It has come to a point that
academics are insisting there is no cost to getting things wrong. The cost is not getting them
published. In a meta-analysis of published research for the Public Library of Science (PLOS), John P.A. Ioannidis placed the blame specifically
on the financial underpinnings of research, noting that the greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely
the research findings are to be true. The results are readily apparent. The

overwhelming number of retractions due to

flawed methodology, flawed approach, and general misconduct over the last decade is
staggering. Stories in almost every field have seen a rash of inaccuracies. The percentage of
scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased tenfold since 1975. Only a fraction of heart
disease and cancer studies have held up to scrutiny as their results were not reproducible. The free-radical theory of aging, once a well-regarded theory
of how antioxidant enzymes affect cell life, has been thrown out, along with the USDAs guidelines for measuring antioxidants in food. This, in turn, has
called into question the whole supplemental vitamin industry, which is based in large part on the need for more antioxidants. The positive effects of
omega-3 fatty acids on everything from cancer prevention to brain development have been challenged after follow-up stories showed no significant
effect. The benefits of regular mammograms have been called into question as the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study showed no
decline in the rate of mortality from breast cancer owing to their use, and regular testing sometimes led to overdiagnosis. While there is certainly still a
center of reputable, respectable, and reproducible science, it is surrounded by a cloud of inaccuracy and chicanery. Enthusiastic discoveries about
possible cancer cures are swallowed whole and regurgitated by a media desperate for content that is unwilling or unable to decipher the false leads,
flawed methodology, and erroneous statistics used to get those results. The

publics understanding of controversial topics

like genetically modified organisms and endocrine disruptors is muddled further by the release
of inaccurate studies supporting each disputed side. Those stories are then turned into shortlived diet fads and health scares, like those linking autism to vaccinations at birth. Results that
are quick to produce and quick to publish are more likely to be inaccurate. Proper science takes
time, and refuting flawed science can take even longer. While it took over nine months to disprove a recent genetic test
for autism, it took only three days for the original study to go from submission to print. In that time, few of those who heard the exciting news of the
initial discovery will likely hear of the disappointment surrounding its correction. When a paper is published trumpeting the discovery of a genetic test
for longevity, it immediately inspires cottage industries dedicated to providing longevity exams. When that paper is retracted not because of fraud or
misconduct but because of a flawed approach those genomic testing operations dont necessarily disappear overnight. They survive in a gray-market

The privatization of academic

research not only hinders the scientific process, it also means that direct
corruption where scientists are paid off by private industry to deceive the public
about toxins in their food or pollution in their air has more opportunity to
continue unabated . Researchers desperate for funding to maintain their positions and
sustain their work are more susceptible to financing from industries eager to distort science to
their own whims. It only encourages the perverse incentives of the free market to take advantage
of what were once public institutions. When the health risks of cancerous flame-retardant chemicals can be distorted by an
industry eager to make money off of their proliferation, then science ceases to work for the public interest. Eventually, the marketbased approach to academic research ceases to be about science but about
attracting attention and money under the gloss of scientific research.
economy that profits off the publics lack of knowledge of current scientific research.

This causes a STEM crisis stagnates the whole industry

Hassard 14 - a writer, a former Massachusetts high school science teacher, Professor Emeritus of Science Education, Georgia
State University, and a graduate of Bridgewater State University, Boston University, and The Ohio State University (Jack, Why Are
Scientists Abandoning Their Research?, 2/24/14, http://www.artofteachingscience.org/why-are-scientists-abandoning-theirresearch/) //CW

Why are scientist abandoning their research, and if they are what does this say about the
looming STEM crisis that the nation faces, at least according to the Obama Administration? In
Chronicle of Higher Education survey of American university research scientists, authors Paul Basken and Paul Voosen report that Strapped Scientists
Abandon Research and Students. Since the article is behind the subscription wall, Ill include a few quotes. A survey was sent to 67,454 researchers

holding grants from the National Institute of Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF). According to the Chronicle study, 11,000

Many said they didnt have the time to fill out the questionnaire because
they were too busy writing grant proposals . Basken and Voosen asked researchers to complete the survey to find
out if the research community was downsizing their ability to do basic research and why. Among the key findings: Nearly
half have already abandoned an area of investigation they considered central to
their labs mission. And more than three-quarters have reduced their recruitment
of graduate students and research fellows because of economic pressures . Basken, Paul,
responded.

and Paul Voosen. Strapped Scientists Abandon Research and Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 24 Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

For more than ten years, the budget of the NIH has been reduced, and the budget of the NSF has
not done well, either. As a result, the total amount of research dollars has shrunk, and this has
created serious problems for research scientists and their students. As Basken and Voosen report,
Depression, discouragement, and stress were common words in the comments that
accompanied responses to the Chronicle survey. Researchers expressed concern both for
themselves and for their counterparts, including students who they had hoped would become
the nations next generation of scientists. Take those who have worked under Patrick S. Moore, a professor of microbiology and
medical genetics at the University of Pittsburgh. Twenty years ago, Dr. Moore and his team discovered the viral cause of Kaposis sarcoma, one of the
most common cancers in AIDS patients. More recently, his lab found the viral cause for most Merkel-cell carcinomas, which kill several hundred
Americans each year. But now the three postdoctoral researchers who led the Merkel-cell discovery and then helped identify a promising possible cure
are all unable to find permanent academic jobs, Dr. Moore said. Perhaps

theyll find work in a corporate setting, doing

applied research, he said. But they should be doing exploratory science to find the cause of the
next cancer. Basken, Paul, and Paul Voosen. Strapped Scientists Abandon Research and Students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. N.p., 24
Feb. 2014. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. I was particularly interested in this study because of the emphasis the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has put on
STEM related fields, and the increased funding (especially in Race to the Top grantees) that is being earmarked for science and related fields.

Further, the Obama administration has called for training 10,000 new engineers each year, and
100,000 STEM teachers by 2020. These figures are based on predictions of the need for more
than 1 million STEM workers over the next decade. But as Robert Charette reports, And yet,
alongside such dire projections, youll also find reports suggesting just the oppositethat there
are more STEM workers than suitable jobs. One study found, for example, that wages for U.S.
workers in computer and math fields have largely stagnated since 2000. Even as
the Great Recession slowly recedes, STEM workers at every stage of the career
pipeline, from freshly minted grads to mid- and late-career Ph.D.s, still struggle to
find employment as many companies, including Boeing, IBM, and Symantec,
continue to lay off thousands of STEM workers . Charette, Robert. The STEM Crisis Is a Myth. - IEEE
Spectrum. N.p., 30 Aug. 2013. Web. 24 Feb. 2014.

Brain drain
Stein 13 - Political Editor, White House correspondent, Huffington Post (Sam, Sequestration Ushers In A
Dark Age For Science In America, 8/14/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/14/sequestrationcuts_n_3749432.html) //CW

It's not just projects receiving NIH grants that have been set back by sequestration. Various
other government agencies have seen their research budgets slashed as well. Early estimates
from the American Association for the Advancement of Science projected that $9.3 billion would
be cut from research and development projects in 2013 alone, including $6.4 billion from the
Department of Defense. Tom Antonsen and Phil Sprangle, two professors at the University of Maryland, said they've experienced funding
shortages from the Defense Department that could hamper their work " I can start off by saying one word: It's
devastating," Sprangle said in a phone interview. " It's a disaster . I guess that's two words."
Sprangle, an electromagnetic physicist, recently submitted a proposal to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to improve radioactivity detection
methods. He believes that with the right breakthrough, port security screening and weapons monitoring, among other things, could be done at a safe

was not good enough to get a grant.

"They have no money this year," he said. "It was put on a list of proposals that
were scientifically acceptable and if money came in they would fund it. This is the
first time I've experienced that." He's been working in the field for 40 years . The
problem, Antonsen said, was not just how the lack of funding would impact graybeards like himself, but also the newcomers to the field . Young
scientists who had spent 12 years studying for their PhDs would find the climate
inhospitable, and future generations would look elsewhere . "We used to be able to tell
people that there was some kind of job security," he said. "That would be a compensation for not
being paid as much. Now, if you are taking a big risk in investing 12 years of your life to learn
how to do the science, people will think twice." The non-technical term for this is "brain
drain." It had been happening for years prior to sequestration, though the recent cuts have accelerated it. Antonsen, a plasma physicist who
distance of more than 100 meters away. "It's a totally new concept," he said. But it

studies the production and interaction of electromagnetic fields with matter, said he has lost two staffers so far: one has left the country and another
accepted a job at a Wall Street bank. A third is currently looking for work outside the field. Boston University's Gursky said that her program in
Physiology and Biophysics had had no incoming graduate students during the last two academic years, while the overall number of matriculating PhD
students at other programs had "dropped sharply." Dutta said a prospective hire in India had recently turned down a job offer in favor of going to
Germany. "That was unheard of not too long ago," he said. One of Dutta's colleagues at the University of Virginia, Patrick Grant, an Associate Professor
of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, said his lab was down to two researchers from a peak of a dozen. His federal funding ran out last year. On the
shelves outside Grant's office were old, empty champagne bottles from happier times. They

had markings on them, noting

student graduations or work being published in scientific journals. "I wouldn't advise people to
go into science," he said. "I think it's a tough career to follow. It's not the career that I thought it
was, or that it was for me a couple of years ago."

random stuff

2ac at: kpublic discussion key to acidification

Public debate on acidification has a real effect can change public policies
Shipley, 14 editor at the Bloomberg View (David, Climate Change Goes Underwater, JUN
29, 2014, Bloomberg View, http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-06-29/climatechange-goes-underwater//AE
When it comes to climate change, almost all the attention is on the air . What's happening to
the water, however, is just as worrying - although for the moment it may be slightly more manageable. It's
not just the Pacific oyster farmers who are finding high pH levels make it hard for larvae to form, or the clam fishermen in Maine
who discover that the clams on the bottom of their buckets can be crushed by the weight of a full load, or even the 123.3 million
Americans who live near or on the coasts. Oceans

cover more than two-thirds of the Earth, and changes to

the marine ecosystem will have profound effects on the planet. Stopping acidification, like stopping
climate change, requires first and foremost a worldwide reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions . That's
the bad news. Coming to an international agreement about the best way to do that is hard. Unlike with climate
change, however, local action can make a real difference against acidification . This
is because in many coastal regions where shellfish and coral reefs are at risk, an already bad
situation is being made worse by localized air and water pollution , such as acid rain from coal-burning;
effluent from big farms, pulp mills and sewage systems; and storm runoff from urban pavement. This means that existing antipollution laws can address some of the problem. States

have the authority under the U.S. Clean Water Act,

for instance, to set standards for water quality, and they can use that authority to strengthen
local limits on the kinds of pollution that most contribute to acidification hot spots . Coastal states and
cities can also maximize the amount of land covered in vegetation (rather than asphalt or concrete), so that when it rains the water
filters through soil and doesn't easily wash urban pollution into the sea. States

can also qualify for federal funding

for acidification research in their estuaries. Such research can hardly happen fast enough. It's
still not known, for instance, exactly to what extent acidification is to blame for the decline of
coral reefs. And if the chemical change in the ocean makes it harder for sea snails and other
pteropods to survive, will that also threaten the wild salmon and other big fish that eat them?
Better monitoring of acidification would help scientists learn how much it varies from place to
place and what makes the difference. This calls for continuous readings, because pH levels shift throughout the day
and from season to season. Engineers are designing new measuring devices that can be left in the water,
and it looks like monitoring will eventually be done in a standardized way throughout the world.
In the meantime, researchers are finding small ways to give local populations of shellfish their
best chance to survive - depositing crushed shells in the mudflats where clams live, for instance, to neutralize the sediment,
or planting seagrass in shellfish habitats to absorb CO2. Such strategies, like pollution control, are worthwhile if only to help keep
shellfish populations as robust as possible in the short term, perhaps giving natural selection the opportunity to breed strains better
suited to a lower-pH world. These

efforts also give humans more time to learn about ocean

acidification. And maybe they will help their political leaders better understand the urgency of
international cooperation on limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Life without the base is pretty much unlivable

Prager 8former assistant dean at U Miami, served as chair of the Ocean Research and
Resources Advisory Panel (Ellen, Dr. Ellen Prager is an experienced marine scientist and author. She is the former
assistant dean at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School, conducted research in Florida Bay while with the U.S. Geological
Survey and served as chair of the nation s Ocean Research and Resources Advisory Panel. TITLE: NOAA's Aquarius Program Turns
20: Looking Back and to the Future SOURCE: Sea Technology 49 no2 97 F 2008//cc)
Since 1993, the undersea lab has supported more than 90 missions. Research

has significantly improved our

understanding of coral reefs and the surrounding waters, particularly in the Florida Keys, and more than 300

peer-reviewed scientific publications have been produced, along with numerous popular science articles and educational programs.

Discoveries at Aquarius included the occurrence of periodic, tidal-driven upwelling events that
deliver high concentrations of nutrients and plankton to the Florida reef tract and a notably higher rate of sponge pumping and
more complex nutrient chemistry than previously measured. Ecological studies have shown how the interaction of
herbivores and predators affect the distribution and abundance of benthic organisms, and a prototype underwater mass
spectrometer is being used to investigate ecosystem dynamics. The National Aeronautic and Space Administration is also

utilizing Aquarius as a unique analog for the International Space Station, as a training site for
astronauts that may one day go to the moon and to test remotely controlled robotics. For the U.S.
Navy, Aquarius provides the sole location for training in saturation diving techniques and a site to test underwater technology. With
real-time broadcast capabilities, the Aquarius program also works to bring the wonders of undersea living and science to students
and the public around the world. Over the past two decades, operations

and technology at Aquarius have

advanced, becoming more streamlined and cost efficient, while maintaining a pristine safety record. For
instance, aquanauts can now fill their scuba cylinders at underwater fill stations, and rapid transfer of high-quality voice, data and

Oceanobserving instrumentation now provide data -- temperature, salinity, turbidity, fluorescence,

currents and waves -- to complement coral reef research, improve marine operations and
integrate with regional and national observing efforts, and these data are accessible in real time via the Internet.
video from the habitat has been made possible by the creation of a wireless bridge from the overlying LSB to shore.

Looking ahead, there are many advances in undersea technology and science still to come. In 2008, scientists will be investigating
the impact of climate change and ocean acidification on reefs, the best practices for coral restoration and nutrient cycling. As a
technology test bed, the future is wide open. Aquarius

is well suited for testing of autonomous underwater

vehicles, antifouling coatings, underwater communications, new chemical and biological sensors
for ocean observing and alternative methods of powering offshore installations . And in ocean
education and outreach, the Aquarius Reef Base has untapped potential to inspire and engage people of all
ages in the ocean, science and undersea technology fields. The future, however, is uncertain. The Aquarius Reef Base,
like other field stations across the nation, is struggling to survive due to reduced funding . For 20
years, NOAA has provided support for operations at Aquarius, but as their budget has tightened and priorities have
changed, support has become precarious. Overall, U.S. investment in ocean science is alarmingly insufficient ,
especially given our economic reliance on the sea, its impact on human health and its value to our culture and history. The federal
government recently released its Ocean Research Priority Plan, "Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the
Next Decade." Will

the Aquarius Reef Base and other valuable marine laboratories be able to support the prescribed
with insufficient support and eventually
disappear altogether? Overshadowed by issues such as the economy, health care and the war in Iraq,
ocean science has little chance of coming to the forefront in politics , especially in a presidential election
year. But on this 20th anniversary of the world's only undersea research station, it is an apt moment to ask our
nation's leaders to recognize the critical importance of the ocean and coasts to the U.S. and its citizens
and to act by investing in ocean science. The consequences of inaction are clear: diminished
capacity and an inability to foster new research and technology development, loss of existing
infrastructure and a community unable to train a sufficient workforce or inspire an ocean-literate and
caring populace. Our economic and societal well being are strongly dependent on the sustainable use
of a healthy ocean. Where we will be in the next 20 years depends on what we support and foster
today.
priorities and the U.S. ocean science mission, or will they continue to struggle

no war
No war sooo many factors
Robb 12 Lieutenant, US Navy
(May 2012, Doug, Why the Age of Great Power War is Over,
www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/now-hear-why-age-great-power-warover)//spark
Whereas in years past, when nations allied with their neighbors in ephemeral bonds of convenience,
todays global politics are tempered by permanent international organizations , regional military
alliances, and formal economic partnerships. Thanks in large part to the prevalence of liberal democracies, these
groups are able to moderate international disputes and provide forums for nations to
air grievances, assuage security concerns, and negotiate settlements thereby making
war a distant (and distasteful) option. As a result, China (and any other global power) has much
to lose by flouting international opinion, as evidenced by its advocacy of the recent Syrian uprising, which has drawn
widespread condemnation. In addition to geopolitical and diplomacy issues, globalization continues to transform the world. This

interdependence has blurred the lines between economic security and physical security.
Increasingly, great-power interests demand cooperation rather than conflict. To that end, maritime
nations such as the United States and China desire open sea lines of communication and protected trade routes, a
common security challenge that could bring these powers together, rather than drive them apart
(witness Chinas response to the issue of piracy in its backyard). Facing these security tasks cooperatively is both mutually
advantageous and common sense. Democratic Peace Theorychampioned by Thomas Paine and international relations theorists
such as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedmanpresumes that great-power war will likely occur between a democratic and
non-democratic state. However, as

information flows freely and people find outlets for and access to new ideas,
authoritarian leaders will find it harder to cultivate popular support for total waran argument advanced
by philosopher Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace. Consider, for example, Chinas unceasing attempts to control
Internet access. The 2011 Arab Spring demonstrated that organized opposition to unpopular despotic rule has begun to reshape the
political order, a change galvanized largely by social media. Moreover, few would argue that China today is not socially more liberal,
economically more capitalistic, and governmentally more inclusive than during Mao Tse-tungs regime. As these trends continue,

nations will find large-scale conflict increasingly disagreeable. In terms of the military, ongoing fiscal
constraints and socio-economic problems likely will marginalize defense issues . All the
more reason why great powers will find it mutually beneficial to work together to find solutions to
common security problems, such as countering drug smuggling, piracy, climate change, human trafficking, and
terrorismmissions that Admiral Robert F. Willard, former Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, called deterrence and
reassurance. As the Cold War demonstrated, nuclear weapons are a formidable deterrent against unlimited
war. They make conflict irrational; in other words, the concept of mutually assured destructionhowever unpalatableactually
had a stabilizing effect on both national behaviors and nuclear policies for decades. These tools thus render great-power war
infinitely less likely by

guaranteeing catastrophic results for both sides. As Bob Dylan warned, When you aint got
is not an end in itself, but rather a way for nations to
achieve their strategic aims. In the current security environment , such a war is equal parts
costly, counterproductive, archaic, and improbable.
nothing, you aint got nothing to lose. Great-power war

these cards are all about a different aquarius, awk

[NASAs Aquarius Mission good]
Lagerloef, Yueh, & Piepmeiner 13 Oceanographer and the Principal Investigator (PI) for
NASA, Deputy Section Manager @ NASA, & Electronics Engineer at NASA Goddard Space
Flight Center
(Jan 2013, Gary, Simon, Jeffery, NASA's Aquarius Mission Provides New Ocean View,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1287382209/EDED5D740B094189P
Q/3?accountid=14667)//spark
NASA's Aquarius mission, launched in June 2011, has been measuring sea surface salinity from space for more than a year.
The mission is designed to map sea surface salinity and its changes over the globe to
study the links between ocean circulation, the global water cycle and climate.
These data help scientists better understand the far-reaching effects of changing
ocean circulation and rainfall patterns, and events such as El Nio, floods, droughts and longerterm climate change . For example, recent multidecadal salinity trends provide a strong indication of changes in the
global water cycle, with wetter areas gaining in rainfall and low rainfall regions becoming more arid. In 2012, the team analyzed and
corrected many aspects of the data processing and calibration, and a new validated data release is planned for late January 2013.

Two scientific studies were published using Aquarius data in 2012, one that showed new
discoveries about long-wave current variations in the tropical Pacific and the other identifying
the effect of the passage of a hurricane over the freshwater river plume of the Amazon . Both of these
studies highlight the fact that Aquarius is revealing smaller spatial scale features in the surface salinity
that was anticipated before launch. In September 2012, an ocanographie expedition Salinity Processes in the Upper
Ocean Regional Study (SPURS) studied the arid subtropical Atlantic region, where the highest surface salinities in the world ocean
are observed. Many

autonomous sensors will remain in place for a year to investigate what ocean
physical processes maintain these high salinity values and complement the large-scale
measurements provided by Aquarius. Aquarius Capabilities Sea surface salinity data
from Aquarius provide a fundamentally new ocean remote sensing capability . The
Aquarius microwave sensor, built by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard Space Flight Center, is the heart of the salinity
measurement system and is the prime instrument on the joint United States and Argentinan Aquarius/Satlite de Aplicaciones
Cientficas-D (SAC-D) satellite observatory. The Argentine space agency, Comisin Nacional de Actividades Espaciales, developed

The
Aquarius microwave sensor includes a 2.5-by-3-meter offset reflector and three radiometer feed
horns (circular openings). Because of the angle these make with the reflector, Aquarius observes the
surface along three parallel tracks (so-called pushbroom design) as the satellite progresses along a nearpolar orbit. Aquarius senses the ocean's surface microwave emission at 1.413 gigahertz (in the Lthe SAC-D spacecraft, which carries Aquarius and other scientific sensors developed by Argentina, Italy, France and Canada.

band portion of the spectrum protected for radio astronomy). The emissivity (measured as a parameter called brightness
temperature) is modulated by the electrical conductivity of seawater, hence salinity. (This is somewhat akin to conventional
ocanographie salinity measurements made in-water with CTD sensors.) The seawater microwave signature comes from the surface
layer of approximately 1 -centimeter thickness. Salinity

varies in the open ocean from about 32 to 38 grams

dissolved salt per kilogram of seawater, measured with an international standard practical
salinity scale based on electrical conductivity. To measure such small differences, the Aquarius microwave
radiometers were designed and built to achieve unprecedented accuracy by including
temperature control to within 0.1 C in the instrument design. Many environmental factors affect the
measurement, the most important one being surface roughness due to wind and waves. Aquarius is adapted to this as
well, by including an L-band radar backscatter sensor that is fully integrated with the electronics
and antenna, one of the first such passive and active instruments ever flown in space for Earth
science. the three Aquarius surface footprints range in size between 90 kilometers and 150 kilometers, and form a 390-kilometerwide swath that provides global coverage every seven days. The mission is designed to achieve a monthly average
global root-meansquare measurement error less than 0.2 (practical salinity scale - approximately parts per

thousand by mass) at 150-kilometer resolution. The

size of the Aquarius footprint limits the accuracy for

measurements close to coastal boundaries because the warmer land brightness temperature
adds a negative bias to the Aquarius sea surface salinity measurement. A nearshore land
correction was developed for this before launch and continues to be improved . Findings on Salinity,
Wind Forecasts The global map generated by Aquarius shows the predominant and well-known climatological ocean salinity
features, such as higher salinity in the subtropics, higher average surface salinity in the Atlantic Ocean compared to the Pacific and
Indian Oceans, and lower salinity in rainy belts near the equator, in the northernmost Pacific Ocean and elsewhere, as well as the
striking salty-fresh contrast between the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal. These features are related to large-scale patterns of
rainfall and evaporation over the ocean, river outflow and ocean circulation. The low-salinity waters associated with the Amazon
River outflow are clearly visible, extending eastward from Brazil across the equatorial Atlantic. Superimposed are surface current
vectors that illustrate the relationship between the meanders in the surface flow and the variations of the surface salinity patterns.
These currents are derived from satellite sea level and surface wind measurements via www.os car.noaa.gov. Combining these data
sets in this way allows scientists to study the direct link between salinity patterns and ocean currents. As noted above, another
important element of the Aquarius microwave sensor is the scatterometer. This sensor measures the radar backscatter at Lband
(1.26-gigahertz) frequency from the sea surface simultaneously with the radiometer emissivity measurements. This backscatter
signal is proportional to the strength of the surface wind and waves (roughness). The

Aquarius scatterometer has had

exceptionally stable performance, with calibration changes less than 0.1 decibels over a year,
allowing highly sensitive detection of sea surface roughness . Areas of higher wind speeds are
evident, such as the tropical trade wind zones and the storm belts in the sub-polar latitudes, and
lower winds in the subtropics. Tropical or extra-tropical storms can also be identified, such as Prapiroon in the western
Racific. Without some proxy surface roughness, accurate salinity retrievals would not be possible. Numerical wind forecasts have

Aquarius solves
this problem with simultaneous measurements that significantly improve the
accuracy of the salinity data . What's Next This year is expected to yield significant scientific discoveries for satellite
salinity measurements. A landmark collection of research papers will address early
scientific results of the mission and include many aspects of how rainfall,
evaporation, river outflows and melting ice are linked to salinity, ocean current
and climate variations. The satellite salinity data are now being tested in numerical ocean
models that are used for ocean now-casting and forecasting and will soon be used to enhance the
skill of long-term climate prediction models. The SPURS measurements will conclude in September, and the science
limitations because of their lack of accuracy and coincidence in time with the satellite measurements.

teams will focus on data analysis, studying the relationships between the in-situ observations and the satellite salinity data. In the
future, a second SPURS may be carried out in an area that is dominated by intense annual rainfall, in direct contrast to the arid
region of the first survey, in order to fully understand ocean processes that regulate the reduced surface salinities and climatic
changes in those regions as well. At the end of 2014, Aquarius will complete a baseline three-year mission designed to measure the
seasonal cycle and inter-annual climate variability. Provided that the onboard systems continue to work as needed, NASA and
Comisin Nacional de Actividades Espaciales plan to maintain the mission operations into the future and continue to gather this
important new data set for studying ocean dynamics, climate change and the global water cycle.

[Space internal link]

U.S. Newswire 11
(22 Sep 2011, U.S. Newswire, Aquarius Yields NASA's First Global Map of Ocean Salinity,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/893666124/EDED5D740B094189PQ
/4?accountid=14667)//spark
Aquarius, which is aboard the Aquarius/SAC-D (Satelite de Aplicaciones Cientificas) observatory, is making NASA's
first space observations of ocean surface salinity variations - a key component of
Earth's climate. Salinity changes are linked to the cycling of freshwater around the planet and influence ocean circulation.
" Aquarius' salinity data are showing much higher quality than we expected to see
this early in the mission," said Aquarius principal investigator Gary Lagerloef of Earth & Space Research in Seattle.
"Aquarius soon will allow scientists to explore the connections between global rainfall, ocean currents and climate variations." The
new map, which shows a tapestry of salinity patterns, demonstrates Aquarius' ability to detect large-scale
salinity distribution features clearly and with sharp contrast. The map is a composite of the data

since Aquarius became operational on Aug. 25. The mission was launched June 10 from Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California. Aquarius/SAC-D is a collaboration between NASA and Argentina's space agency, Comision Nacional de Actividades
Espaciales (CONAE). " Aquarius/SAC-D

already is advancing our understanding of ocean

surface salinity and Earth's water cycle," said Michael Freilich, director of NASA's
Earth Science Division at agency headquarters in Washington. "Aquarius is making
continuous, consistent, global measurements of ocean salinity, including measurements from
places we have never sampled before." To produce the map, Aquarius scientists compared the early data with ocean
surface salinity reference data. Although the early data contain some uncertainties, and months of additional calibration and
validation work remain, scientists are impressed by the data's quality. " Aquarius

has exposed a pattern of

ocean surface salinity that is rich in variability across a wide range of scales, " said

Aquarius science team member Arnold Gordon, professor of oceanography at Columbia University in New York and at LamontDoherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University in Palisades, N.Y. " This

is a great moment in the history of

oceanography. The first image raises many questions that oceanographers will be challenged to
explain." The map shows several well-known ocean salinity features such as higher salinity in the subtropics; higher average
salinity in the Atlantic Ocean compared to the Pacific and Indian Oceans; and lower salinity in rainy belts near the equator, in the
northernmost Pacific Ocean and elsewhere. These

features are related to large-scale patterns of rainfall and

evaporation over the ocean, river outflow and ocean circulation. Aquarius will monitor how
these features change and study their link to climate and weather variations . Other important regional
features are evident, including a sharp contrast between the arid, high-salinity Arabian Sea west of the Indian subcontinent, and the

The data also

show important smaller details, such as a larger-than-expected extent of lowsalinity water associated with outflow from the Amazon River. Aquarius was built
by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., and the Goddard Space Flight Center in

low-salinity Bay of Bengal to the east, which is dominated by the Ganges River and south Asia monsoon rains.

Greenbelt, Md., for NASA's Earth Systems Science Pathfinder Program. JPL is managing Aquarius through its commissioning phase
and will archive mission data. Goddard will manage Aquarius mission operations and process science data. CONAE provided the
SAC-D spacecraft and the mission operations center.

[Space internal link] ISS, Moon colonization, asteroid, oceans

Potts No Date
(Thomas Potts, Save Aquarius Reef Base, hthtps://www.indiegogo.com/projects/saveaquarius-reef-base)//spark
Besides accomplishing their intended goals, scientists are able to see and experience the unexpected, at any time of day or night, and
new revelations await like the discovery of a marine plant or animal that could produce the next wonder drug. Operational since
1993, Aquarius

has given scientists prolonged access to the seabed, a unique opportunity to

observer the oceanic ecosystem consistently and over time . Located within the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, these studies are particularly appropriate and have direct management impacts. The Aquarius gives scientist
and divers extended presence in a real underwater environment that is not available through
traditional scuba diving or shore- based testing facilities. For testing and evaluation of underwater equipment,
this provides unprecedented ability to install, trouble shoot, and monitor the performance of undersea equipment. This capability is
applies to development and testing of cutting edge technologies that are needed in ocean observing, forecasting and modeling; and
reef monitoring and restoration; as well as extreme environment and telepresence testing for remote exploration and medical
procedures. The

similarities between living in space and undersea provide a unique means for
NASA to prepare for extreme environments. Aquarius provides NASA with an analog
training environment that simulates both the International Space Station (ISS)
and moon/Mars exploration missions with realism not available in other analog
environments . Recently, NASA utilized Aquarius to begin addressing threats to planet Earth from potential impacts of Near
Earth Asteroids. Catastrophic asteroid impacts have happened before -- and they will happen again. NASA Extreme
Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) used the Aquarius undersea

laboratory to test innovative solutions to engineering challenges that will be faced

by a potential manned mission to an asteroid . Additionally, The undersea habitat provides
an optimum environment for the crew to practice extravehicular activity preparation and
maneuvers. The isolation and constrained aquanaut quarters, the harsh environment and reduced gravity presents challenges
similar to those that will be encountered during a deep space mission. NASA has also used Aquarius to better understand the rigors
of space life on the human body: Studies

of how the pressurized environment affects sleep and the

bodys immune system, the growth of bacteria in the habitat, the use of wireless medical
monitoring equipment and nutrition-related studies. Testing of an In-suit Doppler to look for nitrogen bubbles
in the blood stream, which could provide an early warning of possible decompression sickness. Use of innovative
telerobotic technology to test remote surgery procedures on a mock patient; with simulated
lunar and martian delays.
Aquarius enables effective salinity research
Mercury, 11 reporter (Hobart, It's the salty age of Aquarius, May 19, 2011, Nationwide
News Pty Limited, lexis)//AE
The US space agency is preparing to launch a satellite to observe levels of salt on the surface of
the world's oceans and how changes in salinity may be linked to future climate . The June 9 launch of
Aquarius/SAC-D comes three months after NASA lost Glory, a $400 million Earth-observing
satellite that failed to separate properly from its rocket launcher and plunged into the ocean . The
orbiting science instrument will aim to map the entire open ocean every seven days from its
position 657km above Earth, producing monthly estimates that show how salt levels change over
time and location. `` There are vast tracts of the ocean where salinity has never been
collected, ever ,'' said Eric Lindstrom, Aquarius program scientist at NASA, describing the high level of precision expected
from the mission. ``We are going to be sampling the whole planet in one week .'' A European satellite was
launched in 2009 to measure soil moisture and ocean salinity, but the Aquarius/SAC-D is a global collaboration with partner
Argentina, as well as France, Brazil, Canada and Italy that will add to scientists' knowledge of the oceans in novel ways.
``Aquarius

will map global variations in salinity in unprecedented detail, leading to new

discoveries that will improve our ability to predict future climate ,'' said principal investigator Gary Lagerloef
of the Earth and Space Research in Seattle, Washington. He said scientists from the European Space Agency who launched the Soil
Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) mission have been working in parallel and sometimes in partnership with NASA and
Argentina's space agency, Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE), as the two separate missions took shape.

SMOS is a dual-purpose mission whose main focus is soil moisture, while Aquarius is aimed
primarily at measuring ocean salinity, which plays a key role in exchanges of water and heat in the atmosphere. ``It
has been a strong co-operative effort,'' Lagerloef said. ``Once we have both of these missions in
orbit, we will compare results, we will intercalibrate them. ``We will do a lot of things co-operatively to
provide the best information about ocean surface salinity to the scientific community that we possibly can.'' A spokesperson
for NASA said the satellite observatory would also carry seven additional instruments to
``collect environmental data for a wide range of applications, including studies of natural
hazards, air quality, land processes and epidemiology''.
Aquarius key to solve warming data
NASA 13 (Feb 27, 2013, NASA's Aquarius Sees Salty Shifts,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/docview/1313189678/C8DE83C442A46A1PQ/4?accountid=14667)//spark

The colorful images chronicle the seasonal stirrings of our salty world : Pulses of freshwater gush from the
Amazon River's mouth; an invisible seam divides the salty Arabian Sea from the fresher waters of the Bay of Bengal; a large patch of
freshwater appears in the eastern tropical Pacific in the winter. These

and other changes in ocean salinity patterns

are revealed by the first full year of surface salinity data captured by NASA's Aquarius
instrument. " With a bit more than a year of data, we are seeing some surprising
patterns, especially in the tropics ," said Aquarius Principal Investigator Gary Lagerloef, of Earth & Space

Research in Seattle. "We see features evolve rapidly over time." Launched June 10, 2011, aboard the Argentine spacecraft
Aquarius/Satalite de Aplicaciones Cientificas (SAC)-D, Aquarius is NASA's first satellite instrument specifically built to study the salt

Salinity variations, one of the main drivers of ocean

circulation, are closely connected with the cycling of freshwater around the planet
and provide scientists with valuable information on how the changing global
climate is altering global rainfall patterns. The salinity sensor detects the
microwave emissivity of the top 1 to 2 centimeters (about an inch) of ocean water a physical property that varies depending on temperature and saltiness . The instrument

content of ocean surface waters.

collects data in 386 kilometer-wide (240-mile) swaths in an orbit designed to obtain a complete survey of global salinity of ice-free
oceans every seven days. The

Changing Ocean The animated version of Aquarius' first year of data

unveils a world of varying salinity patterns. The Arabian Sea, nestled up against the dry Middle East, appears much
saltier than the neighboring Bay of Bengal, which gets showered by intense monsoon rains and receives freshwater discharges from
the Ganges and other large rivers. Another mighty river, the Amazon, releases a large freshwater plume that heads east toward
Africa or bends up north to the Caribbean, depending on the prevailing seasonal currents. Pools

of freshwater carried by
ocean currents from the central Pacific Ocean's regions of heavy rainfall pile up next to
Panama's coast, while the Mediterranean Sea sticks out in the Aquarius maps as a very salty sea .
One of the features that stand out most clearly is a large patch of highly saline water across the North Atlantic. This area, the saltiest
anywhere in the open ocean, is analogous to deserts on land, where little rainfall and a lot of evaporation occur. A

NASAfunded expedition, the Salinity Processes in the Upper Ocean Regional Study (SPURS), traveled
to the North Atlantic's saltiest spot last fall to analyze the causes behind this high salt
concentration and to validate Aquarius measurements. "My conclusion after five weeks
out at sea and analyzing five weekly maps of salinity from Aquarius while we were
there was that indeed, the patterns of salinity variation seen from Aquarius and by
the ship were similar ," said Eric Lindstrom, NASA's physical oceanography program scientist, of NASA Headquarters,
Washington, and a participant of the SPURS research cruise. Future goals " The Aquarius prime mission is scheduled
to run for three years but there is no reason to think that the instrument could not be able to
provide valuable data for much longer than that," said Gene Carl Feldman, Aquarius project manager at NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "The instrument has been performing flawlessly and our colleagues in Argentina are
doing a fantastic job running the spacecraft, providing us a nice, stable ride." In future years, one of the main goals of the Aquarius
team is to figure out ways to fine-tune the readings and retrieve data closer to the coasts and the poles. Land and ice emit very bright
microwave emissions that swamp the signal read by the satellite. At the poles, there's the added complication that cold polar waters
require very large changes in their salt concentration to modify their microwave signal. Still, the Aquarius team was surprised by
how close to the coast the instrument is already able to collect salinity measurements. " The

fact that we're getting areas,

particularly around islands in the Pacific, that are not obviously badly contaminated is pretty
remarkable. It says that our ability to screen out land contamination seems to be working quite
well," Feldman said. Another factor that affects salinity readings is intense rainfall.
Heavy rain can affect salinity readings by attenuating the microwave signal
Aquarius reads off the ocean surface as it travels through the soaked atmosphere.
Rainfall can also create roughness and shallow pools of fresh water on the ocean surface. In the future, the Aquarius team wants to
use another instrument aboard Aquarius/SAC-D, the Argentine-built Microwave Radiometer, to gauge the presence of intense rain
simultaneously to salinity readings, so that scientists can flag data collected during heavy rainfall. An ultimate goal is combining the
Aquarius measurements to those of its European counterpart, the Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity satellite (SMOS) to produce
more accurate and finer maps of ocean salinity. In addition, the

Aquarius team, in collaboration with researchers at the U.S.

about to release its first global soil moisture dataset, which will
complement SMOS' soil moisture measurements. "The first year of the Aquarius mission has
mostly been about understanding how the instruments and algorithms are performing ," Feldman
said. " Now that we have overcome the major hurdles, we can really begin to focus on
understanding what the data are telling us about how the ocean works, how it
affects weather and climate, and what new insights we can gain by having these
Department of Agriculture, is

remarkable salinity measurements. " Aquarius was built by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and Goddard.
JPL managed Aquarius through its commissioning phase and is archiving mission data. Goddard now manages Aquarius mission
operations and processes science data. Argentina's space agency, Comision Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE), provided
the SAC-D spacecraft, optical camera, thermal camera with Canada, microwave radiometer, sensors from various Argentine
institutions and the mission operations center. France and Italy also contributed instruments.

lots of info about the space adv

This is what analog missions are
NASA No Date (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, voted best place to work in the federal government,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/541196main_AnalogFactSheet.pdf//cc)
Analog Missions and Field Tests NASA

is actively planning to expand human spaceflight and robotic

exploration beyond low Earth orbit. To meet this challenge, a capability driven architecture will be
developed to transport explorers to multiple destinations that each have their own unique space environments. Future
destinations may include the moon, near Earth asteroids, and Mars and its moons. NASA is
preparing to explore these destinations by first conducting analog missions here on Earth .
Analog missions are remote field tests in locations that are identified based on their physical
similarities to the extreme space environments of a target mission . NASA engineers and scientists
work with representatives from other government agencies, academia and industry to gather
requirements and develop the technologies necessary to ensure an efficient, effective and
sustainable future for human space exploration. NASAs Apollo program successfully conducted analog missions to develop
extravehicular activities, surface transportation and geophysics capabilities. Today, analog missions are conducted to
validate architecture concepts, conduct technology demonstrations, and gain a deeper understanding of systemwide technical and operational challenges. These analog missions test robotics, vehicles, habitats, communication
systems, in-situ resource utilization and human performance as it relates to these technologies. Concept image The in-space habitat
with crew transportation and space exploration vehicles during a near Earth asteroid mission. Extreme Environments To

prepare astronauts and robots for the complex challenges of living beyond low Earth orbit ,
NASA conducts exploration analog missions in comparable extreme environments here on
Earth and in space. NASA continues to add mission locations to suit advancing requirements and enhance the experiments
to provide NASA with data about strengths, limitations and validity of planned human-robotic
exploration operations. Current locations include the desert, volcanic, arctic, lake, ocean and low Earth orbit environments.
Aquarius is pretty cool
NASA No Date (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, voted best place to work in the federal government,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/541196main_AnalogFactSheet.pdf//cc)

NASAs Extreme Environment Mission Operations Environment: Ocean One of the most extreme
environments on Earth is the ocean. Not only is the ocean harsh and unpredictable, it also provides many parallels to
the challenges of living and working in space. The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, home of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations underwater laboratory Aquarius, serves as the test site for
NASAs Extreme Environment Mission Operations project, known as NEEMO. The isolation and real hazards of
this laboratorys environment make it an excellent site for testing space exploration concepts .
Similar in size to the International Space Stations living quarters, Aquarius is the worlds only permanent
underwater habitat and laboratory. The 45-foot-long, 13-foot-diameter complex is 3.5 miles off the Key Largo coast. A
surface buoy provides connections for power, life support and communication to the habitat that sits
about 62 feet below the surface. Long-duration missions, lasting up to three weeks, provide astronauts
the opportunity to simulate living on a spacecraft and execute undersea extravehicular activities .
During these activities they are able to test advanced navigation and communication equipment and
future exploration vehicles. These tests cultivate an astronauts understanding of daily mission
operations, and create realistic scenarios for crews in close quarters to make real-time decisions.

This is what NEEMO 15 did

Chappell et al 13PhD in human performance in simulated reduced gravity from the
University of Colorado, Technical Director and Deputy Mission Manager on NEEMO 15 (Steve
Chappell attended the University of Michigan and earned a bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. Steve also earned

masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Colorado, studying human performance in simulated reduced gravity. His
research has been focused on optimizing human performance in the next-generation human space exploration systems, including
leading and taking part in studies in different exploration analog environments as a member of the Exploration Analogs and Mission
Development (EAMD) team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Andrew Abercromby is a biomedical engineer and deputy
project manager for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) project, which is designing and testing a new type of
human space exploration vehicle. He is also the deputy project lead for the EAMD team. Andrew has also previously worked in
NASA's Neurosciences Laboratory, Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility, and Flight Mechanics Laboratory and has
participated in NASA analog studies in the arctic, the desert, and beneath the ocean. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Michael
Gernhardt is a NASA astronaut who has been a mission specialist on four Space Shuttle missions. He has a bachelor's degree in
physics from Vanderbilt University as well as master's and doctorate degrees in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.
He is also the principle investigator for the NEEMO project, project manager of the MMSEV project, manager of the NASA JSC
Environmental Physiology Laboratory, principle investigator of the Pre-breathe Reduction Program, and project lead for the EAMD
team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 1, the first NEEMO mission, and was commander of NEEMO 8. NEEMO 15: Evaluation of
human exploration systems for near-Earth asteroids, Acta Astronautica: Volume 89, AugustSeptember 2013, Pages 166178//cc)
2. Methods and protocol design The primary focus

of NEEMO 15 was quantitative evaluation of EVA

techniques and tools while operating under conditions that simulate a NEA and while
comparing the effect of different combinations of exploration systems and crew sizes on
exploration productivity. Specifically, the roles of the MMSEV, as well as 3- versus 4-person crew sizes in NEA exploration,
were to be evaluated. Data from NEEMO 15 will be used in combination with data from software
simulations, parametric analysis, and other analog field tests to inform the continuing
development and refinement of exploration systems and concepts of operations by the Human Spaceflight
Architecture Team (HSAT). Other planned objectives of NEEMO 15 were (1) comparison of NEA-like
communication delays and autonomous crew communication protocols, (2) suit port alignment
guide assessment at varied gravity levels, and (3) evaluation and timeline verification of a wide
range of EVA tools prototypes and work methods. Fundamental to the development of a capability-driven framework
is identifying the exploration systems that are required for the range of destinations being considered and finding safe, affordable,
and effective ways to develop and operate those systems. Many factors affect decisions about the optimal combinations of
exploration systems and crew size; this study focused on the impact of different combinations on operations and productivity while
conducting exploration and Education and Public Outreach activities over a time delay. Preliminary NEA architecture development
work performed by the Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) and HSAT included a robotic precursor, a Deep Space
Habitat, and an MMSEV with rapid EVA capability as the primary exploration systems available for exploration in the vicinity of a
NEA. Similarly, preliminary HEFT and HSAT analysis assumed a 3-person crew although the impacts of crew size are not well
understood. Further analysis, including data from this test, was deemed necessary to better understand the most appropriate
combination of exploration systems, crew size, and crew and system functions, and the most efficient methods for operating over a
communications delay. 2.1. Mission phases The

NEEMO 15 protocol was designed to representatively mirror

phases of a NEA mission, with the following main 3 phases : Phase 1: Use robotic precursor
Gavia AUV (Teledyne Gavia, Iceland) with side-scan sonar and video to provide remote sensing data for
traverse planning, equivalent to sending a robotic precursor to an asteroid . Phase 2: Use
Exploration Ground Data System (xGDS) (NASA AMES Intelligent Robotics Group, Moffett Field, CA) to plan
traverses and Deepworkers to execute peer-reviewed marine science research, equivalent to
performing a near-field survey of an asteroid in an MMSEV. Phase 3: Perform close observations
and sample collections on the sea floor and representative NEA surfaces to simulate EVA from an
MMSEV either anchored to the surface or free-flying near it. The marine science traverses of the NEEMO 15 mission (that is, phases
1 and 2) are not discussed here. Rather, the focus is on describing the methods, equipment, results, and findings from phase 3. 2.2.
NEA exploration circuit To

execute phase 3 of the mission and be able to compare exploration productivity across different
was necessary to define core exploration tasks that would likely be performed at a
NEA and that could be adequately simulated in the NEEMO environment. The core tasks to be assessed
were based on the HEFT and NEA User Team results. The core tasks executed were translation, surface float
sampling, rock chip sampling, soil sampling, geophysical array instrument deployment, and
large orbital replacement unit (ORU) instrument deployment (representative of the potential size of a large core
drill). All tasks for all conditions were performed in simulated near-zero gravity achieved through
buoyancy control using diving systems. 2.3. Mission timeline The planned 13-day mission had a detailed timeline that
conditions, it

balanced the capabilities of the facility with the mission objectives. Each task in the timeline was further detailed in task-specific
timelines or procedures where appropriate. Get-ahead tasks were also included; these were secondary tasks that were to be
accomplished if the nominal tasks were completed and the crew members were ahead of the timeline by a predefined amount of

time. 2.4. Procedures Procedures were developed to an appropriate level of detail for the study. The procedures described the tasks
to be performed by the crew members who performed EVA, by those who engaged in intravehicular activity, and by the Deepworker
submersibles, to achieve each portion of the timeline. Additionally, cue cards were provided for use by the topside support divers
and crew to assist in guiding the test activities. 2.5. Crew selection and training The

6-person crew for NEEMO 15

comprised 3 astronauts, a planetary scientist, and 2 habitat technicians . Crew members were
briefed on the objectives and methods of the study and participated in a comprehensive training
program that included review and practice of the following: Study hypotheses Metrics and
data collection procedures Mission rules Task procedures Equipment familiarization
Mockup familiarization Dive system training Aquarius familiarization Communication
protocols The study was approved by the NASA Johnson Space Center Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects through
protocol # Pro0149. All subjects were medically cleared for participation in the study by the NASA JSC Human Test Subject Facility.
Finally, the subjects who took part in the study reviewed and signed informed consents before participating.

Here is how the data was collected

Chappell et al 13PhD in human performance in simulated reduced gravity from the
University of Colorado, Technical Director and Deputy Mission Manager on NEEMO 15 (Steve
Chappell attended the University of Michigan and earned a bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. Steve also earned
masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Colorado, studying human performance in simulated reduced gravity. His
research has been focused on optimizing human performance in the next-generation human space exploration systems, including
leading and taking part in studies in different exploration analog environments as a member of the Exploration Analogs and Mission
Development (EAMD) team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Andrew Abercromby is a biomedical engineer and deputy
project manager for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) project, which is designing and testing a new type of
human space exploration vehicle. He is also the deputy project lead for the EAMD team. Andrew has also previously worked in
NASA's Neurosciences Laboratory, Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility, and Flight Mechanics Laboratory and has
participated in NASA analog studies in the arctic, the desert, and beneath the ocean. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Michael
Gernhardt is a NASA astronaut who has been a mission specialist on four Space Shuttle missions. He has a bachelor's degree in
physics from Vanderbilt University as well as master's and doctorate degrees in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.
He is also the principle investigator for the NEEMO project, project manager of the MMSEV project, manager of the NASA JSC
Environmental Physiology Laboratory, principle investigator of the Pre-breathe Reduction Program, and project lead for the EAMD
team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 1, the first NEEMO mission, and was commander of NEEMO 8. NEEMO 15: Evaluation of
human exploration systems for near-Earth asteroids, Acta Astronautica: Volume 89, AugustSeptember 2013, Pages 166178//cc)
4. Metrics, data collection, and analysis plan Descriptive

statistics were used to capture and characterize

performance, productivity, and human factors under all test conditions . Inferential statistics were not
used to test the study hypotheses; however, practically significant differences in specific metrics were prospectively defined for the
testing. This process has been used during previous EAMD and EVA suit testing protocols conducted by the EVA Physiology,
Systems, and Performance (EPSP) Project [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11], in which small sample sizes precluded the use of
inferential statistics. 4.1. Acceptability ratings In the EVA debrief data sheets, the

EAMD Acceptability Likert scale was

used to rate the overall acceptability of each condition as well as other, more specific, aspects of
each condition (Table 1). For example, in addition to the crew providing overall consensus ratings of
acceptability for each condition, they provided acceptability ratings for each condition with
respect to specific operations such as translation, worksite stabilization, and sample collection.
Justifications for all ratings were also recorded. A categorical difference in acceptability rating (i.e. totally
acceptable vs. acceptable vs. borderline, etc.) was considered to be practically significant for the purpose of
hypothesis testing as these are discernable breakpoints in the scale at which the ratings take on different meaning; this
convention was also chosen to be consistent with previous analog testing. 4.2. Capability assessment ratings A primary
objective of NEEMO 15 and other analog field tests is ultimately to identify and assess the
functional requirements for conducting exploration missions . That is, there is a need to identify
which capabilities are required for exploration and which capabilities enhance exploration but
are not essential. And almost as important is to identify which capabilities provide marginal or no
meaningful enhancement and can therefore be excluded, resulting in cost savings . Examples of
capabilities that could be assessed during analog tests are technologies, vehicles, tools, additional crew
members, cameras, different operations concepts, and communications bandwidth, to name a few. Thus, a Capability
Assessment Rating (CAR) Scale has been devised to rate the extent to which candidate capabilities are expected to enable or enhance

future exploration missions (Table 2). A categorical difference in CAR (i.e. essential/enabling vs. significantly enhancing vs.

these are
discernable breakpoints in the scale at which the ratings take on different meaning ; this convention
was also chosen to be consistent with previous analog testing. 4.3. Simulation quality ratings The Simulation Quality
rating is adapted from a scale used at the NASA Johnson Space Center Neutral Buoyancy Lab (NBL) (Table 3). The
purpose was to reflect the extent to which the simulation allowed meaningful evaluation of the
aspects of NEA operations that were being assessed. Unplanned communications drop-outs, unresolved hardware failures,
moderately enhancing, etc.) was to be considered practically significant for the purpose of hypothesis testing as

or inadequate mockup fidelity are examples of factors that could affect Simulation Quality Ratings. Aspects of NEA exploration that
were not being assessed in this test, such as anchoring technologies, would not be consideredA when providing ratings of Simulation
Quality. Where Simulation Quality was rated as a 4 or 5 during the test, the corresponding Acceptability and/or Capability
Assessment ratings have been flagged as such in the analysis as those ratings have significant or major limitations; this convention
was also chosen to be consistent with previous analog testing. 4.4. Number of anchors EVA crew members verbally communicated to
the crew members in the habitat each time an anchoring to the NEA surface was performed. The number of anchors per task was
recorded by the intravehicular crew member(s) using the EVA datasheets. When comparing the number of anchors between
conditions, any change of at least 10% was considered practically significant; 10% was chosen as to be large enough to be outside the
variations that may be seen within a given condition and to be consistent with previous analog testing. The data were also used in
post-test parametric analysis to assess the sensitivity of each EVA mode and condition to different assumed anchoring durations.
4.5. Crew health metrics Crew

members were prompted at intervals of not more than 30 min during all
EVAs (and in some cases for each task) for subjective ratings on the Borg Perceived Exertion Scale [12] and the Corlett and Bishop
Discomfort Scale [13]. The data were used to ensure the health and safety of the crew members throughout the test. The subjective
crew health metrics were monitored as test termination criteria in accordance with the CPHS protocol only and are not presented
here. 4.6. Post-EVA debrief and questionnaires Consensus subjective ratings and comments were discussed and EVA debrief
datasheets completed by the NASA Aquarius crew and (separately) by the mission operations support team at the end of each day.
After all EVA activities were completed for the day, the crew and the MMCC EVA operations team teleconferenced together for 20
min to debrief the day's EVA activities. Discussion between the Aquarius crew and the MMCC EVA ops team was limited to
debriefing of the EVA for the purpose of data collection. After concluding the telecon, the crew completed their consensus ratings on
the EVA debrief datasheet. The MMCC EVA ops also completed a post-EVA datasheet by consensus within their own team. The
assumptions and rationale for consensus ratings were also recorded. After the last mission EVA was completed, the NASA Aquarius
crew also completed an end-of-test EVA questionnaire, also by consensus. This questionnaire concentrated on CARs for the different
tools used during the mission. 4.7. Prospective condition comparison testing plan If the consensus overall acceptability ratings for
each condition were 4, each condition was to be considered acceptable . Each condition was to be compared to
each other condition to determine if the consensus overall acceptability ratings were practically significantly different (that is, a
categorical difference in acceptability rating). As an additional comparison, consensus CARs for different conditions were to be
compared. Individual

aspects of the EVA tasks under each condition were also to be recorded to help
inform future hardware and procedural refinements. Comparison of other metrics and post hoc analyses were
also to be performed as deemed necessary and appropriate.

neg

offcase arguments

politics links
Plan decimates political capital any spending is seen as taboo
Schrope 12 (Mark Schrope, outreach coordinator at Schmidt Ocean Institute, Masters in Chemical Oceanography, End of an
age for Aquarius 07/25/12, http://www.nature.com/news/end-of-an-age-for-aquarius-1.11058?nc=1366493944917) SA
The base has been operating in Florida since 1992, and at just over 13 metres long and 5 metres wide it comfortably accommodates a
crew of six. Owned and largely funded by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as part of its National
Undersea Research Program (NURP), Aquarius is run by the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Over

the past

decade, the facilitys budget has ranged from about US$800,000 to $3 million . But the Aquarius team
got a shock in US President Barack Obamas budget request for 2013 this February. NOAA had
recommended that Congress eliminate funding for Aquarius and terminate NURP . Never once did
they mention that this was coming down, says Thomas Potts, Aquariuss director. To draw attention to the labs plight, Potts and
Mark Patterson, a long-time Aquarius user from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science in Gloucester Point, planned a high-profile
final mission. They hoped to win back government support or attract private donations to a new Aquarius Foundation that would
support the facility. Patterson recruited Earle, a former NOAA chief scientist who consulted on Aquariuss location two decades ago
and is now an explorer-in-residence for the National Geographic Society; oceanographer Dale Stokes from the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography in La Jolla, California; and underwater film-maker D. J. Roller to join the mission. Countless reporters and members
of the support crew also visited the site on each day of the 1521 July expedition. Earle and Patterson say that the lab makes a
unique contribution to ocean science because it is the only place where researchers can stay on the bottom for long stretches
saturation diving and reach surrounding undersea study sites in mere minutes. They and other supporters point to a long list of
research accomplishments, including assessing the role of sponges in filtering water around reefs (see Nature 457, 141143; 2009);
the discovery of huge waves of cool water from deeper areas offshore that wash over reefs (J. J. Leichter et al. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 35,
19451962; 2005); and the development and testing of instruments that enable such work. Supporters also say that the lab is
invaluable for ocean outreach. And since 2001, NASA has been renting Aquarius as a training proxy for space operations, because
working in water offers one of Earths closest analogues to working in microgravity. But Andrew Shepard, who directed Aquarius
from 2004 to 2009, was not surprised by the cut. Its

the age-old battle of extramural versus intramural

costs, he says. In recent years, NOAAs Ocean Exploration and Research programme, which supports
NURP, has struggled to adequately fund core priorities such as the ship Okeanos Explorer, and Shepard says
that extramural programmes such as Aquarius are typically a lower budget priority . He also acknowledges
that not everybody thinks that Aquarius is indispensable to the coral-reef-science community. Some people say its in the wrong
place, that it might be useful if you could move it around. I think the big questions are, should it keep going, and if so, for how
much longer, and what should it look like? he adds. Aquarius

has faced major budget crises before, including

supporters have always
restored funding. Now, with the current drive to rein in government spending, thats taboo,
complete funding elimination in past presidential budget requests. But c ongressional

says Shepard. NOAA declined Natures requests for an interview, but in an e-mailed statement, spokesman David Miller said that
Aquarius has been a vital part of fulfilling the agencys core missions. Unfortunately, our

budget environment is very,

very challenging and we are unable to do all that we would like, he adds.
Theyve got it backwards the low cost means its unpopular
Hellwarth 12 (Ben Hellwarth, Journalist, Author of SEALAB, The Closure Of Aquarius Reef Base And America's Scientific
Ambitions, 07/13/13, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-hellwarth/aquarius-reef-base-closure_b_1671280.html) SA
Because the

base has historically been as low profile as it has been scientifically invaluable, its supporters are now
hoping that a final, highly-publicized mission and the help of some Hollywood stars might save the scientific outpost. Still, the
future appears bleak. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which owns the
habitat, wishes to terminate its National Undersea Research Program . Aquarius is a major component of
NURP, though official statements rarely mention it. "While we are grateful for the advances that NURP science has contributed, the
current fiscal climate has required NOAA and all agencies to make some very tough budgetary
choices," says Fred Gorell, a NOAA spokesman. "As such, the fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes to terminate NURP
funding." Tough budgetary choices are a reality of modern U.S. politic s, but the termination of NURP, and
with it, Aquarius, adds up to an annual savings of no more than $4 million a year. The Aquarius base typically gets by on about $2.5
million a year, a drop in the fiscal bucket compared to $450 million per space shuttle mission or the $1.4 million the agency drops on
a defunct moon program daily thanks to vague legal language. Ironically,

Aquarius's low cost has likely

contributed to its low profile. The program can be cut precisely because ordinary citizens

haven't heard of it because it isn't expensive enough to be worth cutting . The lab is a perfect example of
practical spending

noaa tradeoff link

Aquarius directly trades off with NOAA satellites empirics prove
Eilperin 12 (Juliet Eilperin, writer for the Washington Post, Aquarius Reef Base, worlds only undersea lab, falls victim to
budget ax, 07/24/12, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/aquarius-reef-base-worlds-only-undersea-labfalls-victim-to-budget-ax/2012/07/24/gJQAKB1U6W_story.html) SA
Sitting at a table 50 feet under the sea, legendary ocean explorer Sylvia Earle lamented what she believes is a shortsighted federal
decision to cut off funding for the worlds only undersea laboratory. She was speaking by phone from the Aquarius Reef Base off the
coast of Key Largo. She was one of a handful of researchers participating last week in the last federally funded mission to the
Aquarius. The

budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations national

undersea research program is slated to be eliminated , to the dismay of many researchers. For science, we really
need assets to keep eyes on the sea, not just a few glimpses here and there, said Earle, a National Geographic explorer-in-residence.
We need to understand what were doing and how to stabilize the systems that are keeping us alive. Deployed in the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary two decades ago after a four-year stint in the U.S. Virgin Islands, the laboratory has hosted 117 missions
since 1993. The 81-ton yellow tube holds six bunks, a galley, a bathroom, a science station and a wet porch, where scuba-diving
researchers enter and exit. Visitors can stay for up to two weeks with no worry of getting the bends, because the air inside the
Aquarius is pressurized. Researchers, who dive up to 12 hours a day, have used the platform to investigate everything from how
sponges change the oceans chemistry to the way water flows over a reef. But the

federal budget crunch and cost

overruns in NOAAs satellite program have put pressure on the wet side of the agencys budget
its ocean programs. Funding for the national undersea research program plunged from $7.4
million in fiscal year 2011 to $3.98 million in fiscal 2012, before the administration slated it for
elimination in fiscal year 2013. By contrast, NOAA has asked for more than $2 billion to fund its
weather satellite program in 2013 a $163 million increase from the current fiscal year.

asteroids adv cp
Ground based near earth telescopes solve
Morrison 10 Director at Carl Sagan Center for Study of Life in the Universe
(December 2010, David, Impacts and Evolution: Protecting Earth from Asteroids,
http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/1540404.pdf)//spark
A detailed study sponsored by NASA (Stokes 2003) concluded that to

make serious progress within the next

decade in retiring the risk from sub-km NEAs, we need a survey using telescopes substantially
larger than the current systems of 1 meter aperture. Such surveys have been proposed by two panels of the United
States National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council under the general name of LSST, or Large Synoptic Survey
Telescope. A

proposed wide-field LSST telescope of 8 m aperture at a superior observing site in

Chile could carry out a survey that is 90 percent complete down to 200 m in diameter within a
decade while also accomplishing several other high-priority astronomy objectives that require all-sky surveys. Meanwhile, while
funding is being sought for the LSST, the University of Hawaii, with support from the U.S. Air
Force, is constructing a multiple telescope system called PanSTARRS (Panoramic Survey Telescope and
Rapid Response System) with a primary objective of discovering sub-km asteroids . The first
prototype 1.8-m Pan-STARRS telescope was dedicated in June 2006, and became operational late in 2010. The full PanSTARRS array is likely to quadruple the present rate of asteroid discovery, and the
full LSST might increase the survey power by an additional order of magnitude.
CP = sufficient to solve
NA 10 National Academies
[2010, Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12842&page=41)//spark
The pursuit of NEOs as small as 140 meters in diameter requires that more advanced telescope
systems be constructed and used to detect these objects. Required, for ground-based telescopes
for example, are larger-diameter telescope mirrors to increase light-gathering power in
order to observe smaller (therefore fainter at a given location) objects; imaging instruments with larger fields of view
on the sky in order to maximize sky coverage for the surveys; more advanced observing strategies for optimizing NEO detection in
the areas of the sky that are searched; faster operating detectors; and large data-storage capabilities. Because of the rate of motion of
asteroids across the sky, exposures

are limited to about 30 seconds. A telescope needs to be able to

gather sufficient light from dim objects in that short time in order to achieve the
goala smaller telescope using longer exposures to reach that magnitude will not
suffice. Multiple smaller telescopes imaging the same field to make up the aperture will work, but smaller telescopes imaging

fields nonsimultaneously will not. There are cost, schedule, and technical performance risks involved with the construction of any
large-diameter mirror or large detector, although the risk for such ground-based telescopes is less than that for space-based
telescopes. The

new systems described below are examples of ones that could contribute
significantly to the detection of NEOs that could impact Earth in the future . Such systems thus could
support efforts required to meet the mandated goal. Large Synoptic Survey Telescope The Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) is
a survey project under development, sponsored by a large consortium, centered around a telescope with an 8.4-meter-diameter
mirror having a 9.6-square-degree field of view. This survey would scan the entire sky accessible from its planned location on El
Pachon, a developed site in Chile. The

survey plan is to scan the visible sky twice per night every 3 to 4
days in five visible and near-infrared wavelength bands. The LSST can reach a limiting
magnitude of M = ~25.1 for detecting NEOs. The major science goals for LSST include
cataloging and characterizing all classes of moving objects in the solar system, and hence
identifying NEOs. By building a telescope with a wide field of view to cover the sky quickly, coupled with a large mirror to
detect faint objects, the LSST expects to use the same images to fulfill most of its science goals. Each area of sky observed in one

night will include two back-to-back 15-second image exposures, combined to become one 30-second exposure. The

output of
the survey will include very large multi-color, multi-epoch catalogs of asteroids and comets, with
precisely calibrated sky location and brightness. Simulations of LSST operations (cf. Ivezi, 2009) show that
typical NEOs will have hundreds of observations spaced across the lifespan of the survey (10 years under normal operations), and
often more than 50 observations during 6 months, allowing for better characterization of the NEOs. The

Moving Object
Processing System (MOPS) developed for Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response
System (PanSTARRS 1; see below) is also under further development by the LSST team, for use in
detecting and determining orbits for all moving objects. All data produced by LSST will be publicly available.
Within 60 seconds of acquisition of an image at the telescope, real-time data processing will
identify moving sources (e.g., NEOs) and forward the data to MOPS . Images will then be transmitted to the
National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, for permanent storage and to
multiple Data Access Centers, which are designed for public queries of the LSST data and include additional data-processing
software. According to the LSST project, LSST

will be capable of detecting 90 percent of all potentially

hazardous NEOs larger than 140 meters in diameter in about 17 years under normal (non-NEOoptimized or -dedicated) operations (cf. Chesley, 2008). The LSST projects simulations using the LSST operations simulator
and an NEO model supplied by PanSTARRS in MOPS (based on the Bottke et al. [2002] NEO distribution) show that by optimizing
operations for NEO detection, the required time could be reduced to about 12 years to detect 90 percent of all potentially hazardous
NEOs larger than 140 meters in diameter (Chesley, 2008). These

optimizations include exposing for longer time

intervals in the area of the sky within 10 degrees of the plane of Earths orbit to observe fainter
objects and detect NEOs at larger distances, limiting observations to only those three
wavelength bands in which NEOs have the strongest signals, and adding observations targeted
to locations at 60- to- 90-degree angles away from the Sun, and within 10 degrees of the plane of and inside
Earths orbit, thus maximizing the observing of the surface of the NEO illuminated by the Sun. An LSST telescope
dedicated solely to searching for NEOs could complete the survey in about 9 years
of operation at much greater expense (see below).

canada cp
The CP solves the case best tech and key to international collaboration
Fazekas 04 - a science writer, broadcaster, and lecturer who loves to share his passion for the wonders of the universe
through all media. He is a regular contributor to National Geographic News and is the national cosmic correspondent for Canadas
Weather Network TV channel, space columnist for CBC Radio network, and a consultant for the Canadian Space Agency (Andrew ,
Deep-Sea Sojourn Explores Space Age Medicine, 11/15/04,
http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2004_10_15/nodoi.7381563402365965092)
//CW

NEEMO crewmate and NASA astronaut Michael Barratt says that Canada has distinct
advantages for a project like NEEMO, both in the technology and on the administrative side.
Canada is recognized as a world leader in robotic research and has a reputation
worldwide for creating effective international agreements and partnerships . "There's
something about Canadians and space robotics," says Barratt . "They're legendary." Canada also has a history
of successful collaborations. There are many cases in Canada of government agencies,
universities, and the private sector working together on a new piece of technology . Barratt points out the
Canadian Osteo project looking at bone tissue cultures that flew on the space shuttle in 1998. " That is a great demonstration of the
effectiveness of a partnership between the government, the University of Toronto, and a small
company called Millennium Biologix in Kingston, Ontario." What advice do these veteran
aquanaut/astronauts have for early-career scientists looking to bring together an international
project of their own? Seek out counterparts in other countries who are doing similar research
either through meetings or direct contacts. NEEMO started out in that way, with an initial inquiry from
McMaster University. Williams can trace his own connection to the NEEMO mission to a real-life surgery experience during his 1998 Columbia shuttle
mission. Don't shy away from cold calls and introductory letters to agencies and societies, seeking help tracking down contacts within the research
community. "That kind of networking takes a little courage to do at first but then again, if you don't do it, you're not going to make any headway," warns
Williams. The

key to international collaborations is to be open and willing to learn, adapt, and be

flexible. Williams believes that it is precisely these qualities that brought together the space and medical communities on the NEEMO mission.
"What's really neat is if you can use these opportunities to create technology accelerators and
create international collaborative teams, then you can go forward and do great things ," explains
Williams. "You can see the excitement in everyone's eyes and it doesn't matter where they come from. Everyone is thrilled to be a part of this thing!"
Williams has been involved with NEEMO since the very first mission almost a decade ago, and he sees evolution and growth in both experimental
complexity and team capabilities as talented people from a range of organizations work together more effectively, pushing the technological envelope a
bit further with each mission. "Pulling

together all the elements of this mission not only demonstrates and
evaluates new technology, but challenges the skills of the researchers involved and the people
who are providing the operational work, so that next time around we can push the edge of the
envelop even farther," says Williams.

k linkspace exploration
The call for space development is based on an imperialist frontier mythology that
unifies adventure and material exploitation, Columbus and technological progress
this necessitates the expansion of colonial social relations and the denigration of
earthly concerns
Redfield, 2 Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (Peter, The Half-Life of Empire in
Outer Space, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 5/6 (Oct. - Dec., 2002), pp. 791-82, JSTOR)

The rhetorical link between outer space and colonial history requires little introduction. Anyone
with a passing acquaintance of the Space Age is familiar with its frontier metaphors and
allusions to European colonial expansion, from the frequent appearance of male
explorers past in NASA presentations to the imaginary exploits of increasingly varied Star Trek
crews. The above quotation thus constitutes a reflexive, though casual, reference; its intended import lies less in the actual words
transcribed than the reminder of a larger pattern echoing through them.12 Just like colonial history itself, the field of representation
running through outer space is complex, multiple and full of tension, encompassing the possibility of reversals and counter-themes,
such as the reverse colonialism of alien abductions.13 However, at

the base of rockets we can identify a consistent

and optimistic reading of history through the future. In the aftermath of the 20th century, advocates of
space exploration constitute perhaps the last unabashed enthusiasts of imperialism,
cheerfully describing conquest, settlement and expansion, and hesitating not a whit before
employing the term 'colony'. Theirs is a Columbus of exploration, nation building and risk
taking, not of invasion, domination and genocide. History is cleansed above the planet;
unlike a group of Native American scholars meeting in the immediate aftermath of the Apollo landing, it would never occur
to participants of workshops such as the one cited above to 'pity the Indians and the buffalo of
Outer Space' [Young (1987): 271]. Here I will take the explicit tie of human activity in outer space to the vocabulary of earlier
periods of colonial expansion and imperial rule - its blatant historical resonance - as seriously as possible, in order briefly to examine
the ancestry and legacy of exploration, on and over the globe. To do so I first refer to two fictions of import to space history, Jules
Verne's mid-19th-century sardonic fantasy of a moon voyage, and Fritz Lang's early-20th-century film epic on the same topic, both
of which employ imperial tropes prominently in their narration. Between the two we

can recall variant definitions of

the key term 'adventure', and its implied personal or financial risk, part way between exploration and
exploitation. I want to position 'adventure' to describe a form of extending networks, an ambiguous and
plural category of movement, but one that is hardly neutral. The history of rocketry describes an
undeniably fertile intersection between fantasy and fact, a veritable garden of grafts between
narrative, engineering and the legacy of adventure. No one embodies this observa- tion better than Jules Verne,
the one-time stockbroker who, in the relative bourgeois comfort of the French seaport of Nantes, penned tale after tale of breathless,
male adventure in the far reaches of geography and machin- ery.14 Verne was not only a remarkably productive author himself, but
also proved seminal in the second sense of encouraging productivity on the part of others. Among the most interesting of his devoted
readers were not only future writers of what would come to be called science fiction, but also the pioneering figures of spaceflight:
Tsiolkovsky, Oberth, Goddard, Korolev and Von Braun [McDougall (1985): 20; McCurdy (1997): 12-16]. Verne's 1865 work, From
the Earth to the Moon [De la terre a la lune], in particular, is frequently lauded for its foreshadowing of events a century later.15 For
our purposes, I would like to dwell on a passage found in the 1870 completion of the moon adventure, A Trip Around It
[Autour de la lune]. Here our three protagonists, Impey Barbicane, the gun club president and instigator of the lunar shot, Captain
Nicholl, his old rival and vigorous sceptic, and Michel Ardan, the impulsive Frenchman who inspired them to climb aboard, are
hurtling through space en route to the moon. Under the influence of a surfeit of oxygen, they engage in a giddy discussion of their
voyage and significance, and Barbicane admits he

has not considered what they might do on the moon should

they get there. Nicholl then demands to know why they are going in the first place: 'Why?' exclaimed Michel, jumping a yard
high, 'why? To take possession of the moon in the name of the United States ; to add a fortieth state to the
Union; to colonize the lunar regions; to cultivate them, to people them, to transport hither all
prodigies of art, of science, and industry; to civilize the Selenites , unless they are more civilized than we are;
and to constitute them a republic, if they are not already one!' 'And if there are no Selenites?' retorted Nicholl, who, under
the influence of this unaccountable intoxication, was very contradictory. ... The two adversaries were going to fall upon each other,
and the incoherent discussion threatened to merge into a fight, when Barbicane intervened with one bound. 'Stop, miserable men',
said he, separating his two companions; 'if there are no Selenites, we will do without them'. 'Yes', exclaimed Michel, who was not
particular; 'yes, we will do without them. We

have only to make Selenites. Down with the Selenites!' 'The

empire of the moon belongs to us', said Nicholl ... [Verne (1958 [1865/1870]): 140-42] 1This passage is notable both for
its farcical tone and for the central importance of the topic under discussion: the very goal of the voyage. Only at this advanced point
in the narrative - long after the characters can claim any semblance of control over their circumstances - does Verne raise the issue
of why they have embarked in the first place, or what they might hope to accomplish. The

characters quickly resort to a

vocabulary of colonial adventure. Theirs will be a civilizing mission, but one in which natives
prove ultimately dispensable. Should their destination prove a lifeless orb, then they will
simply proclaim what they otherwise would have to enforce: a recognizable social order
modelled on their point of departure. I suggest that this passage neatly encapsulates the
assumed political geography of most later descriptions of humanity's future beyond Earth's
atmosphere (the fact that it was written before the final push of European rule through Africa and Asia should give us additional
pause, since it foreshadows high imperialism as well). In stories, at least, adventure can serve as its own
justification, and achieve a momentum that renders its exact goal an afterthought. Extending a
network can itself be an end.'7 But what of more calculating interests, and less farcical possibilities of
political economy? As a materialist counterweight, let us add another early cultural artefact of the Space Age, Fritz Lang's 1929
film, Woman on the Moon [Frau im Mond]. Lang's work is particularly significant because, as with Verne, the
project sought a certain realism amid its romance (employ- ing the rocket virtuoso Hermann Oberth as a technical advisor), and

a
material motivation for this flight is clear from the very start of the story, and it is Columbus' very dream
inspired the young Germans who would later make up the V-2 team [McCurdy (1997): 15]. In contrast to Verne's novel,

- the acquisition of gold. At the heart of this modern quest lurks a traditional sin of greed. Against the mad genius of Professor
Manfeldt (who first declares the abundance of gold on the moon) and the idealism of Wolf Helius (the romantic hero who dreams of
space travel), stands the villainous Herr Turner, agent of the financiers who fund the rocket and care only about returning profit to
earth.18 In addition to moving elements of family drama into space, Lang's

film also features the establishment of

a colonial environment, featuring displaced, closed social relations and an expanded ecosystem
bent on export, such that the moon can acquire calculable value. Here the pure dream of space
travel becomes tied to a less genteel promise of material gain. And yet a version of that dream
not only remains, but also shapes the possibility of heroism. I want to underscore three observations about
these two famous moments of space fantasy. The first is simply an affirmation of deep rhetorical connections between exploration
above and below the atmos- phere. Despite the particularities of the cultural imagination displayed in them, when taken together
these two works remind us of the greater narrative inertia inside the drive for adventure. While

focus shifts to a
wondrous horizon, and new, exacting techniques of exploration such as rockets and
astronomical navigation, the field of vision retains earthly assumptions, desires and fears. As
interesting as what each set of explorers seeks in the moon is what they bring with them: frock coats and a sense of civilization on the
one hand, and campfire sweaters and a lust for profit on the other. The material is there for an effort to 'provincialize' these fictions
by revealing the specificity of their historical debts. Such a project would remain a scholastic exercise, however, and well within the

these fictions provided space

exploration with a recognizable future, and thus helped engender fantastic practices.
These dreams found engi- neers, eager to materialize them. My second observation is about the form of
colonization being im- agined: like the occupants of Verne's projectile for whom the 'Selenites' are ultimately superfluous,
or Lang's heroic protagonist who stays behind on the moon, the history of space representation is full of visions
of settler colonization. This point is not surprising, given the narrative topology of any act of leaving the earth or extending
bounds of the literary end of postcolonial studies, were it not for the uncomfortable fact that

human life through the galaxy, but it has effects when placed next to the fissures of terrestrial history. Even the planners of the
German V-2 dreamed beyond their engines of destruction, imagining an era of peaceful exploration, while American and Soviet cold
warriors alternated geopolitical fears of final conflict with calls to embrace a new dawn for humanity.'9 Amid explicitly imperial
tropes of representa- tion, space offered the prospect of a renewed form of settlement, this time into a zone safely free from human
difference. Returning to etymological roots, humans could find new domains to culture, together, as a species.20 By considering the

Within
them - and their potential realization - the atmosphere serves as the threshold of human unity .
earth as a planetary entity, then, fantasies of space exploration have presented a 'limit case' of one measure of scale.

My final observation involves a potential dynamic of representation created by the interaction of the first two points. Like Verne's
protagonists, committed to their trajectory and inventing a goal on the fly, the

language of space exploration returns

to history post hoc, within a planetary frame implying common humanity. Thus it should come
as no surprise that the sense of history commonly invoked in space narratives is a species narrative, full of giant leaps. Here we have a variation of Chakrabarty's dilemma, only posed in scalar, rather than chronological
terms. Just as European history naturally defines the categories of modernity by virtue of prece- dence, outer space naturally

defines the globe by virtue of bounding it. Those people claiming this new realm seem to leave old ones - at least their
more unpleasant details - behind. Such a space fantasy involves 'scale', both in the sense of a motion of
expansion and the sense of establishing a boundary. It is consequently impatient with concerns
that remain local (the actual lives of any Selenites), or ultimately earthly (the calculations of Lang's financiers).
Space is a higher calling. In order to interrogate the continued resonance of this higher calling on the ground, moving from
general discourse more deeply into specific practice, I will shift closer to the material present and briefly sketch a tropical outpost of
high technology.

k linkbiodiversity focus
Focusing on biodiversity necessarily devalues the inorganic, the ecosystem
matrix that is the ultimate source of value.
Katz 1997 Eric Katz, Director of Science, Technology, and Society Program at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997
[Nature as Subject p. 20-21]

moral
consideration of species does not provide direct reasons for the protection of the nonliving
environmental background, the natural objects that form the material structure of ecosystems. Environmentalists, for example, seek
the preservation of beautiful natural rock formations, free-flowing rivers, and undeveloped wetlands. They seek
In addition, there are conceptual problems with this interpretation of an environmental ethic. In a practical sense, the

this preservation, not simply because of the life forms which live in and around these natural areas, but because of some direct
interest in the nonliving objects themselves. But this concern for nonliving natural objects cannot

be explained by a

moral consideration of species. A more serious problem is the justification of an environmental ethic that focuses on
species as the primary object of moral consideration. Why should species count so much? Why should species be so
important? Joel Feinberg, for one, discounts species entirely as the proper objects of direct moral concern: "A whole collection,
as such, cannot have beliefs, expectations; wants, or desires.., individual elephants can have interests, but the
species elephant cannot."~ For Feinberg, at least, an entity without interests cannot have moral rights or be an object of
moral consideration. Now although I am not suggesting agreement with Feinberg's views, he does emphasize the

oddity

of considering

a whole species a morally relevant entity. Indeed, this interpretation of an environmental ethic has rather an ad hoc
aura to it: since environmentalists desire the protection of rare and endangered species, they create an ethic that considers species
in themselves as morallyvaluable. But on what can this moral value be based? Either a species is important
because it fulfills an ecological function in the natural community, in which case the community model of an environmental ethic will explain its preservation; or a species is important because the individual members of the
species are valuable, in which case an individualistic model of an environmental ethic will explain the act of preservation.In
itself, a species-based environmental ethic seems to be an uneasy, groundless compromise between the
broad view that the natural community is the environmentally appropriate moral object and the narrow view that natural individuals
are themselves the bearers of moral worth.

case arguments

squo solvesprivate funding good

New private funding is the best philanthropic research model leads to the best
new science
BROAD 14 - science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times (WILLIAM J., Billionaires With Big Ideas Are
Privatizing American Science, 3/15/14, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-bigideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0) //CW
In the traditional world of government-sponsored research, at agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health,
panels of experts pore over grant applications to decide which ones get financed, weighing such factors as intellectual merit and social value. At times,
groups of distinguished experts weigh in on how to advance whole fields, recommending, for instance, the construction of large instruments and
laboratories costing billions of dollars. By contrast, the

new science philanthropy is personal, antibureaucratic,

inspirational. For Wendy Schmidt, the inspiration came in 2009, from a coral reef in the Grenadine islands of the Caribbean. It was her first
scuba dive, and it opened her eyes to the riot of nature. She talked it over with her husband, Eric, the executive chairman of Google,
and the two decided that marine science needed more resources. (The governments research
fleet, 28 ships strong in 2000, has shrunk by about a third and faces further cuts.) So they set up the
Schmidt Ocean Institute in Palo Alto, Calif., and poured in more than $100 million. The centerpiece is a ship nearly the length of a football field that,
unlike most research vessels, has a sauna and a helicopter pad.<<picture removed>> We

want to rapidly advance scientific

research, to speed it up, Mrs. Schmidt said in an interview. The philanthropists projects are as
diverse as the careers that built their fortunes. George P. Mitchell, considered the father of the drilling process for oil and gas
known as fracking, has given about $360 million to fields like particle physics, sustainable development and astronomy including $35 million for the
Giant Magellan Telescope, now being built by a private consortium for installation atop a mountain in Chile. The cosmos, Mr. Mitchell said in an
interview before his death last year, is too big not to have a good map. Eli Broad, who earned his money in housing and insurance, donated $700
million for a venture between Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to explore the genetic basis of disease. Gordon Moore of Intel has
spent $850 million on research in physics, biology, the environment and astronomy. The investor Ronald O. Perelman, among other donations, gave
more than $30 million to study womens cancers money that led to Herceptin, a breakthrough drug for certain kinds of breast cancer. Nathan P.
Myhrvold, a former chief technology officer at Microsoft, has spent heavily on uncovering fossil remains of Tyrannosaurus rex, and Ray Dalio, founder
of Bridgewater Associates, a hedge fund, has lent his mega-yacht to hunts for the elusive giant squid. The

availability of so much wellfinanced ambition has created a new kind of dating game. In what is becoming a common
narrative, researchers like to describe how they begged the federal science establishment for
funds, were brushed aside and turned instead to the welcoming arms of philanthropists. To help
scientists bond quickly with potential benefactors, a cottage industry has emerged, offering
workshops, personal coaching, role-playing exercises and the production of video appeals.
Seriously, it is the best fill-in better cost management for better science
BROAD 14 - science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times (WILLIAM J., Billionaires With Big Ideas Are
Privatizing American Science, 3/15/14, New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-bigideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0) //CW
Representative Lamar Smith would beg to disagree.

Mr. Smith, a 14-term Republican from Texas, helped found the House
chairman of the
Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Last year, after a meteor exploded over Russia
and injured more than 1,200 people, Mr. Smith declared that new sensors in space were critical
to our future. Then he held a hearing to showcase a satellite-borne telescope meant to scan the
solar system for speeding rocks that could endanger the planet. Money for the venture comes
from leaders of eBay, Google and Facebook, as well as anonymous private donors . We must
better recognize what the private sector can do to aid our efforts to protect the world, Mr. Smith said.
In decades past, that job would have belonged to NASA. But at the hearing, the projects head,
Edward T. Lu, a former astronaut and Google executive, testified that the spacecrafts cost
$450 million was about half what the government would have spent. Committee members
enthusiastically suggested that the private endeavor pointed the way toward a new era of lower
federal spending. Congratulations! said Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican. Im totally supportive. In the recent
interview, Dr. Collins of the N.I.H. acknowledged that the philanthropists were terrifically important for
Tea Party Caucus and, after the Tea Party ferment swept the Republicans to power in the House, became

filling gaps and taking advantage of new opportunities. The science, he

emphasized, has never been at a more exciting moment.
Specifically awesome for ocean research dependence is the new trend
UMA 13 - The College of Natural Sciences (CNS) is both the newest and the oldest college at UMass Amherst. Established in
2009, the college unites the life, environmental, computational, and physical sciences, and mathematics on campus (quoting James
Holden - Ph.D. Department of Microbiology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst) (University of Massachusetts Amherst,
Holden's undersea research nets private funding Google, Intel Founders, October 2013,
http://www.cns.umass.edu/about/newsletter/october-2013/holdens-undersea-research-nets-private-funding) //CW

When microbiologist James Holden launches new studies of the microbes living deep in the
cracks and thermal vents around an undersea volcano, his deep-sea research will be funded not
by the NSF but by philanthropists committed to supporting oceanographic research. Holden has
received research support from The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation started by the co-founder of Intel and his wife, and the Schmidt Ocean
Institute (SOI), started by Eric Schmidt of Google and his wife, Wendy. The Moores' foundation is dedicated to advancing environmental conservation
and scientific research, while the

SOI supports oceanographic research projects that "help expand the

understanding of the world's oceans through technological advancements, intelligent
observation and analysis, and open sharing of information." Holden says, "This doesn't happen
very often with ocean research, but I'm very pleased to receive the support. This private funding
shows how science research has shifted," he adds. "I still apply for grants from NSF and NASA,
but ocean scientists are becoming more dependent on private philanthropy. I'm very glad that
organizations outside of the federal government are interested in our research and see the value
of the science."
Key to STEM education
Klobuchar 13 US Senator of Minnesota (Hon. Amy to James Cameron, DEEP SEA CHALLENGE: INNOVATIVE
PARTNERSHIPS IN OCEAN OBSERVATION, 6/11/13, HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON OCEANS, ATMOSPHERE,
FISHERIES, AND COAST GUARD of the COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES
SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG113shrg87852/html/CHRG-113shrg87852.htm) //CW
Question. Because

innovative technologies are needed to further explore the deep ocean, how vital is
STEM focused education for deep sea exploration? We know there are partnership programs to entice students and
companies to pursue investing in STEM education, and more specifically ocean exploration technologies, what do you feel makes these partnerships
successful, and what more needs to be done? Answer. The

issue of the importance of STEM education to ocean

exploration goes in both directions; the ocean science community is dependent upon a highly
trained scientific and technology savvy workforce, but it is also provides an attractive and
effective mechanism to interest and engage students in STEM disciplines . One example is growing student
interest in robotics in general while underwater robotics provides the increased attraction of applying this interest to ocean exploration. The
ocean science community remains fully committed to supporting the STEM education initiative,
which includes direct interaction with students at all levels of the academic spectrum , from K-12
through post-doctoral students. What has helped make many marine education partnership successful, perhaps first and foremost, is the hands-on
engagement of students with scientist, in the field, in the lab, and for post-graduate level, in the agencies, where participants gain a better
understanding of the context within and drivers behind the work is being done. It is difficult to overstate the importance of establishing a direct
relationship between students and scientists, since these interactions provide much of the intellectual stimulus that rewards the participants and

As for what is
needed to improve the success of these efforts, there are multiple suggestions. One of the biggest
growth areas in ocean studies at present is the huge expansion in data volumes associated with
all aspects of the research. This means that the next generation of ocean scientists and engineers
will need to be far more numerate and computer literate that ever before. Researcher today must
deal with immense volumes of data, which has resulted in the growth of the field of ocean
informatics, which represents the union of oceanography, information science and social science
domains. Infomatics' focus is to design a thick infrastructure that enables interoperability and facilitates collaborative science and scientists. The
provides the foundation for the continuation of these efforts with the encouragement and support of the participants.

term is used simultaneously today in a variety of ways, emphasizing applications of information technology, representing natural or human systems,
and exploring multifaceted sociotechnical issues. Thus, one of the key ingredients to future success will be the ability to transfer, store and manipulate

these large data sets more effectively and more efficiently. Important in this regard will be: The use of telepresence to engage a wider number of
researchers, educators and their students than can participate in deep ocean research directly using the traditional approach of restricting participation
to those at sea on research ships Improved algorithms to maximize efficiency searching larger and more disbursed databases to select the most relevant
data. Improved forward and backward modeling of processes to help anticipate where important data may arise and to help prioritize where future

To date, programs such as NOAA's Ocean Exploration

program, the Ocean Exploration Trust and the newly established Schmidt Ocean Institute have
made great advances in bringing research and exploration ashore, in real time via telepresence,
so that members of the public of all ages and abilities can follow along, in the moment. The next
step is to move this a one-way data-stream--which is already very effective for outreach
purposes--and provide a more engaging two-way form of communication. Using the same datapipelines to harness these capabilities, just as has already been done for Space-based research,
will allow for meaningful oceanographic research and education to be pursued without the need
for all such researchers and educators to be aboard ship. Moving beyond the role of a distant
observer, to having students become actively participating in authentic research in real- time,
provides for a much more engaging experience. Finally, there is also need for extra-curricular
activities, either after-school or during STEM summer camps, which feature ocean exploration
and robotics. Industry sponsorship is essential if we are to make after-school and summer
opportunities available for all children, not just those whose parents can afford camp tuition.
Greater emphasis can be placed on developing partnership programs to entice students and
companies to pursue investing in STEM education
studies should be focused to maximize returns on investment.

Private funding is better than governmental funding assumes all of their

warrants
Diamond06 - professor of economics at the University of Nebraska at Omaha (Arthur M., Jr., The relative success of private
funders and government funders in funding important science, 2006, Eur Law Econ (2006) 21: 149-l6l DOI 10.1007/Sl0657-0066647-0, http://cba2.unomaha.edu/faculty/adiamond/WEB/DiamondPDFs/RelativeSuccessOfPrivateFunders.pdf) //CW

Governmental organizations vary from the efficient to the totally corrup t. Non-profit orga- nizations vary
from the efficient to the totally corrupt. Here, I hypothesize that, in general, non-profit organizations will be more
efficient at providing a service than will the govern- ment . This is not because the people working for non-profits are
any better than those working for government. Rather, it is because there are important differences in the incentive
structure of non-profits and government. l. A private donor may support a few organizations at
relatively high levels, while her taxes are divided into small amounts that go to support a great
many government bureaus. It is less costly for the donor to monitor the activities of a few organizations than many bureaus. 2. It is
easier for the donor to act on information in the non-profit sector than it is for the taxpayer to
act on information in the government sector. This is for two reasons: (a) In the government
sector, the taxpayer must usually select from a limited number of package-deals . Usually the voter votes
for a package (or party platform) that includes government activities that the voter is against, either on principle or because they are being inefficiently
carried out. (b) In

the non-profit sector there are very frequently many organizations providing
similar services. The greater number of organizations competing for donor money results in
greater efficiency of operations. It also increases the likelihood that a donor will find an
organization whose program of activities matches their own preferences. The importance of incentives in
government decision-making under uncertainty has been studied by economists before. Sam Peltzman did a cost-benefit study of whether the benefits
of the FDA in preventing drugs like thalidomide were greater than the costs as measured by the delayed approval of useful and life-saving drugs. He
found that the costs of delaying the good drugs were many times higher than the benefits of stopping the bad drugs. This does not imply that those
working for the FDA are stupid or incompetent, or uncaring. What it does imply is that they know that their careers will be over if they approve
thalidomide, whereas, generally, they will not be held so accountable for the delay of a useful drug. (Although there may be exceptions to this as with
the case of the vocal AIDs lobby.) Just as there are high risks for the FDA in approving a drug before it has been thoroughly tested, there may be risks
for a government agency in funding scientific ideas before they have been admitted to the mainstream. 5 We do not hold all the mistaken equally
accountable for all of their mistakes. If someone makes a mistake that everyone else in their position is making, then the presumption is that they could
not have known better, given the current state of knowledge. If someone makes a novel mistake, then they are out on a limb by themselves, much more
likely to be held accountable for their actions (see: Scharfstein and Stein). I know of only six studies that present hard statistical evidence on the issue of
the relative efficiency of non-profits and government .

Five of these studies focus on some aspect of health care; the

sixth on higher education. There are probably a couple of reasons that most of the studies are on
health care. One is that all three types of institution (for-profit, non-profit, and government) are
active in providing health care. Since all three types are present, health care presents a
promising domain for testing the relative efficiency of each type of institution . Another reason for the focus
of` research on health care is that for many years in the U.S., health care costs have been rising at a substantial rate. This has made research on health
care a high priority for those concerned about public policy. We lack the space to provide the details of any of the six studies, but instead will highlight
only the relevant conclusions. The

first focused on whether increased competition increased the efficiency

of U.S. med- ical research charities. Susan Feigenbaum (1987) examined the hypothesis that the level of
competition among non-profits will affect how much they spend on administrative costs, fundraising costs, and "pass-through" to the ultimate beneficiaries. Her systematic anal- ysis of the
evidence indicates that increased competition reduces administrative costs and increases fundraising costs of' and pass-through to the beneficiaries. Five other studies, three on nursing homes (Frech and Ginsburg,
1981; Bekele and Holt- mann, 1987; Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg, 1983), one on hospitals (Cowing and Holtmann 1983), and one on higher
education(LabandandLentz,2004),directly compare the efficiency of the three institutional types. Four

of these studies agree with

one conclusion: that govern- ment institutions have higher costs than for-profit firms. Two of
the four studies (Bekele and Holtmann; and Cowing and Holtmann) also find evidence that non-profit institutions
have higher costs than for-profit firms. The other two studies(Frech and Ginsburg; and Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg) show mixed
results on the relative costs of non-profits. One of these (Borjas, Frech, and Ginsburg ), for instance, finds that church-related nursing homes actually
have lower costs than for-profit firms.

The fifth study of the five that directly compare the efficiency of the

three institutional types (Laband and Lentz, 2004), is an outlier in failing o find that governmental institutions of higher education have
higher costs than for-profit in- stitutions. Applying their research design to their data, 7 Lab and and Lenz conclude
that the only statistically significant result between the three institutional types is that
government institutions have higher costs than non-profit institutions. Although the empirical
evidence is mixed, it is at least not strongly inconsistent with the hypothesis sketched earlier,
that for-profit firms are the most efficient, non-profit organizations are the next most efficient,
and government organizations are the least efficient.

All of their warrants are false private funding incentivizes better science via
competition
BROAD 14 - science journalist and senior writer at The New York Times (WILLIAM J., Billionaires With Big
Ideas Are Privatizing American Science, 3/15/14, New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html?_r=0) //CW

They have mounted a private war on disease, with new protocols that break down
walls between academia and industry to turn basic discoveries into effective
treatments. They have rekindled traditions of scientific exploration by financing
hunts for dinosaur bones and giant sea creatures. They are even beginning to
challenge Washington in the costly game of big science, with innovative ships,
undersea craft and giant telescopes as well as the first private mission to deep
space. The new philanthropists represent the breadth of American business, people like Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor (and
founder of the media company that bears his name), James Simons (hedge funds) and David H. Koch (oil and chemicals), among hundreds of wealthy
donors. Especially prominent, though, are some of the boldest-face names of the tech world, among them Bill Gates (Microsoft), Eric E. Schmidt
(Google) and Lawrence J. Ellison (Oracle). This

is philanthropy in the age of the new economy financed with

its outsize riches, practiced according to its individualistic, entrepreneurial creed. The donors
are impatient with the deliberate, and often politicized, pace of public science, they say, and
willing to take risks that government cannot or simply will not consider.

asteroid impact d
No extinction
Boulter 05 professor off paleobiology at the Natural History Museum (2005, Michael,
Extinction, Evolution, and the End of Man, http://books.google.com/books?
id=NPSL4AUtnGsC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=
%22Evidence+now+shows+that+the+environmental+changes+caused
%22&source=bl&ots=eUfNDSvWtN&sig=TL30aK1aRzomB5VmZuYnnnTZVsc&hl=en&sa=X&ei
=wSa8U7uhH4ejO_74geAK&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Evidence%20now
%20shows%20that%20the%20environmental%20changes%20caused%22&f=false)//spark
Evidence now shows that the environmental changes caused by the collision of the Yucatan meteorite were restricted to a very short
length of geological time. We think that the

whole catastrophe lasted only 10,000 years, with many details

of the event preserved in the deposit of iridium layer which I described in chapter 2. When
interplanetary dust and iridium and the toxic debris from the fires themselves settled over the Earths surface between the
Cretaceous and the Tertiary, a layer of these particles sedimented where it could. It

was the same layer that Walter and

Luis Alvarez first made famous just a quarter of a century ago with their discovery. Elsewhere, the
Earth became a much quieter place than at some of the other mass-extinction
events, when the sea experienced long crises from other sources such as volcanic
activity . At the PermianTriassic (PTr) boundary, 245 million years ago, prolonged lack of oxygen, high temperatures and
acid rain caused much more havoc. As an event within a self-organised system, this CretaceousTertiary (KT) avalanche, 65
million years ago, was small enough to allow the sand pile to return to its earlier shape surprisingly quickly. The

sand pile of
evolutionary biology continued to build from its own internal forces, despite the big kick from
the Chicxulub asteroid. That is shown by The Fossil Record 2 and other data to be interference from outside the system, a
kick to the sand pile. Other scientists such as Gould and Eldredge, who support the step-wise
Punctuated Equilibria for the evolutionary process, see it as another advance up the slippery
pole of evolution. Many organisms were well protected from the mayhem and show no signs of
damage or change. They continued their former lives unaffected by the environmental change. On the other hand, when the
ecosystem was more disturbed, with frequent upsets as a consequence of the catastrophe, then recuperation was slow, with altered
ecosystems and new ecological relationships. These

alterations became global and are the most prominent

legacy of the dinosaur and ammonite extinctions. But other questions remain. How did the entire biosphere, all
the biology and ecology, respond to the extinctions of large organisms like ammonites and dinosaurs? The changes in fauna
and flora had effects on the way living organisms were recovering from the traumas of finding
themselves with new neighbours, let alone new surroundings. The effect was dramatic for some forms of life
while it made little or no impression on others. Nevertheless, numerous new species and genera evolved just after
the KT boundary at the beginning of the Tertiary period. Paleontology textbooks have lots of
drawings speculating from skeletal evidence on what the new furry mammals looked like . Their
appearance may be uncertain, but there is evidence to show that there were lots of them, new species as well as growing populations
of individuals. New Families of land invertebrates, freshwater fish and even lizards took over the free space left by the greedy
dinosaurs. Marine

fish and plankton diversified just as quickly at the species level, but there was no
immediate change in the Family constituency or the individuals behaviour . Recovery from the
catastrophe in the marine realm was controlled by how and when oxygen returned to the water. There is some debate about what
happened. Some of the small shelly zooplankton seem to have lived right through the catastrophe, not to be replaced until there was

Other kinds of plankton from deeper ocean show a range of different

responses. Some groups became extinct, others survived, and the majority
radiated as new species, genera and even Families. Whats more, these responses were immediate,

full recovery.

and we can see them happening within a few hundred years of one another just after the event itself.

No chance of extinction from asteroids weve found the biggest asteroids

Morrison 2006 -

Working Group on Near Earth Objects, International Astronomical Union (August, David, Asteroid and comet impacts:
the ultimate environmental catastrophe http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1845/2041.full)
The survey

results have already transformed our understanding of the impact threat. If we focus
on asteroids larger than 2km, which is the nominal size for a global catastrophe, then we are
already nearly 90 per cent complete. For 5km diameters, which may be near the threshold for an
extinction event, we are complete today. Thus, astronomers have already assured us that we are
not due for an extinction-level impact from an asteroid within the next century . Barring a very
unlikely strike by a large comet, we are not about to go the way of the dinosaurs. Thus, the
rest of this paper focuses on the more frequent impacts by sub-kilometre asteroids, which are still big enough to destroy a large city or a small country,
or to devastate a coastline, with possibly world-altering economic and social consequences.

Theres no imminent threat to the Earth and we would have centuries of warning
in the status quo
BENNETT 2010 (James, Prof of Economics at George Mason, The Doomsday Lobby: Hype
and Panic from Sputniks, Martians, and Marauding Meteors, p. 168-169
Cooler heads intervened. Donald Yeomans of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory said, The comet will pass no closer to the Earth than 60 lunar distances
[14 million miles] on August 5, 2126. There

is no evidence for a threat from Swift-Tuttle in 2126 nor from any other known
comet or asteroid in the next 200 years.96 Even Brian Marsden concurred. He retracted his prediction, though he held out the
possibility that in the year 3034 the comet could come within a million miles of Earth. Surveying this very false and very loud alarm, Sally Stephens,
writing in the journal of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, observed, Marsdens

prediction, and later retraction, of a

possible collision between the Earth and the comet highlight the fact that we will most likely
have century-long warnings of any potential collision, based on calculations of orbits of known
and newly discovered asteroids and comets. Plenty of time to decide what to do .97

at: asteroid initiative

Its not feasible to capture an asteroid too many barriers
Griffin 13 - Editor at 33 Universal , previously a writer for Science World Report (Catherine, NASA's Asteroid Capture
Initiative Benefits from Rich History (Video), 6/12/13, http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/6201/20130412/nasasasteroid-capture-initiative-benefits-rich-history-video.htm) //CW

The mission itself wouldn't be easy. First, the researchers would have to actually find an asteroid
that was suitable for capture. It would have to be much smaller than the threatening, near-Earth
objects that are currently being sought. This means that any data that has actually found
the type of asteroid that the project would need has probably been ignored . In addition to
size, scientists would also have to take makeup and spin into account; the asteroid would need to possess a heliocentric
orbit that will return to Earth's vicinity in the 2020s, allowing researchers time to develop the
mission. After finding the asteroid, the scientists would launch a probe into space with an
existing launch vehicle, such as an Atlas V rocket. It would then travel to the asteroid and snag it
before transporting it to the second Earth-Moon Lagrange point , where the vagaries of gravity and inertia would
keep the space object at a roughly consistent position, according to Arstechnica. This would allow researchers to examine the asteroid and even conduct
space walks around it.

Aquarius cant effectively simulate attachment of vehicles to an NEA

Chappell et al 13PhD in human performance in simulated reduced gravity from the
University of Colorado, Technical Director and Deputy Mission Manager on NEEMO 15 (Steve
Chappell attended the University of Michigan and earned a bachelor's degree in Aerospace Engineering Sciences. Steve also earned
masters and doctoral degrees from the University of Colorado, studying human performance in simulated reduced gravity. His
research has been focused on optimizing human performance in the next-generation human space exploration systems, including
leading and taking part in studies in different exploration analog environments as a member of the Exploration Analogs and Mission
Development (EAMD) team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Andrew Abercromby is a biomedical engineer and deputy
project manager for the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) project, which is designing and testing a new type of
human space exploration vehicle. He is also the deputy project lead for the EAMD team. Andrew has also previously worked in
NASA's Neurosciences Laboratory, Anthropometry and Biomechanics Facility, and Flight Mechanics Laboratory and has
participated in NASA analog studies in the arctic, the desert, and beneath the ocean. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 14. Michael
Gernhardt is a NASA astronaut who has been a mission specialist on four Space Shuttle missions. He has a bachelor's degree in
physics from Vanderbilt University as well as master's and doctorate degrees in bioengineering from the University of Pennsylvania.
He is also the principle investigator for the NEEMO project, project manager of the MMSEV project, manager of the NASA JSC
Environmental Physiology Laboratory, principle investigator of the Pre-breathe Reduction Program, and project lead for the EAMD
team. He was a crewmember on NEEMO 1, the first NEEMO mission, and was commander of NEEMO 8. NEEMO 15: Evaluation of
human exploration systems for near-Earth asteroids, Acta Astronautica: Volume 89, AugustSeptember 2013, Pages 166178//cc)
1.5. Near-Earth-asteroid anchoring techniques Among

the most significant challenges for a human mission to

a NEA is the attachment of vehicles, crew members, or payloads to the surface of the NEA. The size, spin rate, and
composition of NEAs are highly variable; they range from loosely consolidated rubble piles to solid, monolithic chondrites.

Technology development efforts are underway to assess the feasibility of different anchoring
techniques, and at the time of writing, no estimates were available as to the time required to establish
anchors, the restraint forces that NEA anchors might be capable of providing, or even whether anchoring would be achievable at
all. The NEEMO 15 mission did not attempt to evaluate the efficacy of different anchoring
technologies. Rather, a consistent approach to anchoring that is specific to the NEEMO
environment was used, the number of simulated anchors was measured, and post-test analysis parametrically evaluated the
effect that different theoretical anchoring times would have on overall task times. The subsurface portion of any tools
used on NEEMO 15 were considered NEEMO-specific and not necessarily directly applicable to
an NEA mission. For example, sand and magnetic anchors were used to secure excursion lines for NEEMO; although sand and
magnetic anchors may be NEEMO-specific, the portion of the tool or excursion line that was above the surface was evaluated, given
the assumption that anchoring to an NEA is achievable. Clearly, the

validity of all EVA techniques that require

local anchoring is contingent on the as-yet-unproven ability to anchor to a NEA . For this reason it is
expected that some EVA surface operation modes may be shown to be viable under certain
assumptions but become impractical if anchoring technologies require more than a certain
amount of time to achieve an anchor.

no stem shortage
No STEM shortage their data is cherrypicked
Teitelbaum 14 (Michael Teitelbaum, senior research associate with the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School,
The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-thescience-and-engineering-shortage/284359/ MAR 19 2014)
The truth is that there

is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S.

science and engineering workforce. How can the conventional wisdom be so different from the empirical evidence? There
are of course many complexities involved that cannot be addressed here. The key points, though, are these: Science and engineering
occupations are at the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world, and science and engineering
workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any 21st century economy to prosper. These professional workforces also
are crucial for addressing challenges such as international security, global climate change, and domestic and global health. While
they therefore are of great importance, college graduates employed in science and engineering occupations (as defined by the
National Science Foundation) actually comprise only a small fraction of the workforce. A compelling body of research is now
available, from many leading academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of
Economic Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No

one has been able to find any evidence

indicating current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and
engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher, although some are forecasting high growth in
occupations that require post-high school training but not a bachelors degree. All have concluded that U.S. higher
education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job
openingsthe only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more. Were there to be a genuine shortage at
present, there would be evidence of employers raising wage offers to attract the scientists and engineers they want. But the evidence
points in the other direction: Most studies report that real wages in manybut not allscience and engineering occupations have
been flat or slow-growing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations. Because

labor
markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields , industries, and time periods, it is easy to
cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in specific years and locations. But
generalizing from these cases to the whole of U.S. science and engineering is perilous. Employment
in small but expanding areas of information technology such as social media may be booming, while other larger occupations
languish or are increasingly moved offshore. It is true that high-skilled professional occupations almost always experience
unemployment rates far lower than those for the rest of the U.S. workforce, but unemployment among scientists and engineers is
higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses, and surprisingly high unemployment
rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious shortages such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science
(7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent).